Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLYARD LANDSCAPES AS OUTDOOR LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS:
NORTH TEXAS STAKEHOLDERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF THE NO CHILD LEFT INSIDE ACT
by
SHAWN MARIE BOOKOUT
Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of
The University of Texas at Arlington
in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
MASTER OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT ARLINGTON
December 2010
Copyright by Shawn Marie Bookout 2010
All Rights Reserved
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This document would not have been written without the patience and constant support of
my family and friends. I want to first thank my husband, Kyle. Without your constant
encouragement, I could have never achieved this goal. I want to thank my children—Brad, Stacy,
Joshua, Bryan, and Cody—as you all have been patient and understanding through my untold
years of college. I want to thank my sister, Kristen, for your unhesitating support and
encouragement to keep pushing forward. I want to thank all my family members who have
shared and supported me during my journey to make my dream a reality.
I want to extend my sincere appreciation to my thesis committee. Thank you to my thesis
chair, Pat D. Taylor, who has guided me through the many years I have been at UTA; Taner R.
Ozdil for his constant open door, encouragement to stay the course, and faith in me to
accomplish my goal; David D. Hopman for always pushing me to do my best.
Many thanks to my other professors who have contributed to my education: Gary O.
Robinette for sharing his wealth of knowledge about the profession of landscape architecture; Jim
Richards who gave me inspiration, insight and support; and David Hocker, Summer Baldwin,
John Fain, and Bo Bass. I want to thank Shane Garthoff for his patience in teaching me and
showing me how a successful landscape architecture office works. And finally, I want to thank
my classmates for their friendships and sharing this journey with me.
November 22, 2010
iv
ABSTRACT
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLYARD LANDSCAPES AS OUTDOOR LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS:
NORTH TEXAS STAKEHOLDERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF THE NO CHILD LEFT INSIDE ACT
Shawn Marie Bookout, M.L.A.
The University of Texas at Arlington, 2010
Supervising Professor: Pat D. Taylor
So that children can be exposed to a more stimulating outdoor educational experience,
the United States public education system developed and implemented strategies to accomplish
an integrative approach between indoor and outdoor learning (Gardner 1991; Wells and Evans
2003; Titman 1994; Moore 1986). One of these strategies is to allow for an enhanced connection
between children and the outdoor environment through the betterment of school landscapes. As
described by Wohlwill (1983), the outdoor environment is ―that vast domain of organic and
inorganic matter that is not a product of human activity or intervention.‖
The purpose of this study is to obtain descriptive opinions from North Texas public school
stakeholders regarding integration in their respective schools of the Federal No Child Left Inside
Act of 2009 (NCLIA). The study explores the perceptions of administrators, school designers,
and parents regarding the benefits of children’s exposure to and interaction with the outdoor
environment in general. This qualitative study provides a better understanding about the
v
importance of incorporating the outdoor environment into children’s educational experience in
North Texas public schools.
The No Child Left Inside Act aims to expand the understanding of public school
stakeholders about the importance of outdoor experiences in elementary education. This
initiative gives incentives to schools to encourage learning through various educational activities
in the outdoor environment, which provides opportunities for children to enhance their physical
abilities and intellectual development and to use multiple sensorial experiences to strengthen
their learning. A connection with the outdoor environment has health, social, psychological,
intellectual, and physical benefits for children (Kellert 2005; Louv 2008; Maller 2006; Malone
2003; Orr 1992; Taylor 2000; White 2004). Successful implementation of NCLIA strategies
requires the cooperation and engagement from various sectors in the educational community,
including administrators, teachers, and parents.
The design of this research study combined a review of relevant literature with personal
interviews. The interview sample was composed of 12 subjects, including four school principals,
four school designers, and four parents. The sample represented schools that were built after
introduction of the NCLIA in 2009.
The study revealed that in only three of the schools do children use the outdoor
environment extensively (the outdoor environment is an extensive part of the children’s education
experience). Half of the respondents expressed that the outdoor environment is only used for
physical education (PE) and play, versus three other respondents who said that the outdoor
environment is used mostly to teach science. The majority of the respondents, 11 out of 12, had
no prior knowledge of the NCLIA, and only one had knowledge of the NCLI movement.
The study further revealed that the NCLIA has not been implemented or adopted in North
Texas schools. Half of the respondents perceived the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and
Skills (TAKS) test as the main barrier for NCLIA adoption in schools. However, nine respondents
expressed positive opinions about implementing the Act in their schools. The results of this study
vi
strengthened the importance of integrating the outdoor environment into class curriculums and
general experiences of children in their schools. It also reinforced the need to establish and
sustain NCLI design requirements in the scope of elementary school design planning.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................ iii
ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................................... iv
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................ xi
Chapter Page
1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Overview ....................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Problem Statement ....................................................................................................... 3
1.3 Definition of Key Terms ................................................................................................ 4
1.4 Research Method ......................................................................................................... 5
1.5 Summary ...................................................................................................................... 6
2. LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................................................................. 8
2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 8
2.2 Children and Nature Connection .................................................................................. 8
2.2.1 Children-Nature Disconnection .................................................................. 12
2.2.2 Nature Deficit Disorder ............................................................................... 13
2.2.3 No Child Left Inside Movement .................................................................. 14
2.3 Green Schoolyards and Learning ............................................................................... 15
2.3.1 Multi-sensory Learning ............................................................................... 15
2.3.2 The Eighth Intelligence ............................................................................... 16
2.3.3 Cognitive Development .............................................................................. 18
2.4 Green Landscapes: Social and Behavioral Development .......................................... 18
2.4.4 Environment and Behavior ......................................................................... 19
viii
2.4.5 Social Development.................................................................................... 20
2.5 Green Schoolyards and Play ...................................................................................... 21
2.5.1 Preference for Natural Settings .................................................................. 21
2.5.2 Play Behavior in Natural Settings ............................................................... 21
2.6 Green Schoolyards and Eco-literacy .......................................................................... 23
2.6.1 Environmental Awareness .......................................................................... 23
2.6.2 Environmental Connection ......................................................................... 23
2.6.3 Environmental Education ........................................................................... 24
2.7 Green Schoolyards and Health .................................................................................. 25
2.7.1 Psychological Benefits of Access to the Outdoor Environment ................. 25
2.7.2 Therapeutic Benefits of Access to Outdoor Spaces ................................... 26
2.7.3 Benefits of Access to Outdoor Spaces on Obesity .................................... 26
2.8 Green Schoolyards and Outdoor Learning................................................................. 27
2.8.1 Outdoor Classroom .................................................................................... 27
2.8.2 Wildscapes ................................................................................................. 27
2.8.3 Edible Gardens ........................................................................................... 28
2.9 Summary .................................................................................................................... 29
3. RESEARCH METHODS ........................................................................................................... 31
3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 31
3.2 Research Methodology ............................................................................................... 31
3.2.1 Relative Advantage .................................................................................... 33
3.2.2 Compatibility ............................................................................................... 33
3.2.3 Complexity .................................................................................................. 33
3.2.4 Trialability ................................................................................................... 34
3.2.5 Observability ............................................................................................... 34
3.3 Interview Protocol ....................................................................................................... 34
ix
3.4 Research Questions ................................................................................................... 35
3.5 Research Sample ....................................................................................................... 35
3.6 Assumptions ............................................................................................................... 35
3.7 Scope, Limitations, and Delimitations ........................................................................ 36
3.8 Bias and Error ............................................................................................................. 36
3.9 Summary .................................................................................................................... 37
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................................................. 38
4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 38
4.2 Analysis of the Interviews ........................................................................................... 38
4.2.1 Experiences of Children with the Outdoor Environment in their Schools ................................................................................................... 39
4.2.2 How the Outdoor Environment Has Been Incorporated into the Educational Experience of North Texas Schools ................................... 41
4.2.3 Knowledge About the NCLIA ...................................................................... 43
4.2.4 Incorporation of the NCLIA Goals into the Schools .................................... 44
4.2.5 Barriers to NCLIA Adoption by North Texas Public Schools ...................... 46
4.2.6 Opportunities for NCLIA Adoption by North Texas Public Schools ............ 48
4.3 Discussion .................................................................................................................. 51
4.3.1 Stakeholder Opinions Regarding Children’s Experiences with the Outdoor Environment ............................................................................. 51
4.3.2 Integration of the Outdoor Environment into Children’s Educational Experiences ............................................................................................ 51
4.3.3 Knowledge About the NCLIA ...................................................................... 51
4.3.4 Perceived Barriers to NCLIA Adoption in Schools ..................................... 52
4.3.5 Perceived Opportunities for NCLIA Adoption in Schools ........................... 52
4.3.6 Perceptions of Relative Advantage Regarding the NCLIA ......................... 52
4.3.7 Perceptions of Compatibility Regarding the NCLIA ................................... 53
4.3.8 Perceptions of Complexity Regarding NCLIA Adoption ............................. 53
x
4.3.9 Perceptions of Trialability Regarding the NCLIA ........................................ 53
4.3.10 Perceptions of Observability of the NCLIA ............................................... 53
4.4 Summary of Findings .................................................................................................. 54
5. CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................... 56
5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 56
5.2 Relevance to the Profession of Landscape Architecture ........................................... 59
5.3 Suggestions for Further Research ............................................................................. 60
APPENDIX
A. NO CHILD LEFT INSIDE COALITION AND THE NO CHILD LEFT INSIDE ACT OF 2009 ............................................................................................................................ 62
B. EMAIL INTERVIEW REQUEST ............................................................................................... 66
C. LETTER FOR INTERVIEW REQUEST ................................................................................... 68
D. SCRIPT FOR INITIAL CALL TO SCHEDULE INTERVIEW .................................................... 70
E. INTERVIEW INTRODUCTION AND LIST OF QUESTIONS ................................................... 72
F. RECURRING THEMES IN INTERVIEW RESPONSES .......................................................... 74
G. INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTS .................................................................................................. 86
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 113
BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION ............................................................................................... 127
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
2.1 Typology of Values in Nature (Kellert 2005) ......................................................................... 11
4.1 Interview Question 1 Recurring Themes Matrix ................................................................... 41
4.2 Interview Question 2 Recurring Themes Matrix ................................................................... 43
4.3 Interview Question 3 Recurring Themes Matrix ................................................................... 44
4.4 Interview Question 4 Recurring Themes Matrix ................................................................... 45
4.5 Interview Question 5 Recurring Themes Matrix ................................................................... 48
4.6 Interview Question 6 Recurring Themes Matrix ................................................................... 50
F.1 Recurring Themes in Responses to Interview Question 1 ................................................... 72
F.2 Recurring Themes in Responses to Interview Question 2 ................................................... 77
F.3 Recurring Themes in Responses to Interview Question 3 ................................................... 79
F.4 Recurring Themes in Responses to Interview Question 4 ................................................... 80
F.5 Recurring Themes in Responses to Interview Question 5 ................................................... 81
F.6 Recurring Themes in Responses to Interview Question 6 ................................................... 82
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
What’s the relationship between God and Mother Nature – are they married or are they just friends?
Richard Louv
What is the relationship between School and Mother Nature? Are they getting divorced or are they committed
to working on a long-term relationship? David Sobel
1.1 Overview
Modern conveniences and the location of schools in cities and suburbs have limited the
use of the outdoor environment in children’s learning experiences. In recent years, parents and
educators have raised concerns regarding the decrease in opportunities for children, ages five to
18, to experience the outdoor environment in their daily life, including their schools (Rivkin 1997;
Taylor 2001). Parents and educators have urged for an educational experience that would
include active learning by children in the outdoor environment (Fjortoft 2001; Kahn 2002; NFER
2004).
Ecological literacy is the ability to understand the principles that organize and make
ecosystems sustainable (Orr 1992). Also referred to as eco-literacy, it is becoming more difficult
to integrate into children’s daily educational activities or to teach to new generations, because
there are fewer opportunities for direct contact and experience with the outdoor environment—
soils, plants, wildlife, and all the outdoor elements not created by human intervention (Chawla
2006). Urban and city environments are largely isolated from nature, which is only randomly
integrated into those human-made environments (Orr 1992). With changes in technology,
urbanization, and increasing demands from classwork and structured activities, the disconnect
increases between children and the outdoor environment (Holmes 1998; Johnson 1998).
2
However, time in the outdoor environment offers benefits to children’s development
(Titman 1994). Kaplan and Kaplan (1989) suggest that people prefer natural environments and
that such environments provide many personal benefits (Moore and Marcus 2008). Research
indicates a direct link between nature and children’s overall development (Kahn 2002; Kellert
2002; Louv 2008; Opotow 2003; Faber-Taylor, Kuo, and Sullivan 2001). Lynch (1995) observed,
―In childhood, we form deep attachments to the location in which we grew up and carry the image
of this place with us for the remainder of our lives‖ (Lynch p. 825). To create attachments with
nature, children need to spend time in and have unbridled access to the outdoor environment
(1995). The outdoor environments that surround children need to be carefully designed to suit
their need to develop and to connect with the outdoor environment, thereby enabling that
attachment.
Stemming from the need for children to be more exposed to outdoor educational
experiences, the United States public education system, with the assistance and cooperation
from the public and private sectors, developed and implemented strategies to accomplish an
integrative approach between indoor and outdoor learning, such as the No Child Left Inside Act
(NCLIA) of 2009. This strategy provides for the betterment of school landscapes to allow for that
children-nature connection (NCLIA 2009). For more information on the NCLI Movement and the
Act’s introduction in Congress, see Appendix A.
Because of the important benefits to the physical, emotional, mental, and intellectual
development of children, it is beneficial for educators, administrators, parents, and the community
to better understand the importance of incorporating the outdoor environment into children’s
educational activities (Louv 2005). Integration of the NCLIA into the public school system is to be
a team effort between school designers, educators, and parents. This integrated approach is
important because all environments to which children are exposed and in which they interact
affect many aspects of their development (Clayton and Opotow 2003; Louv 2005; Kellert 2005;
3
Faber-Taylor, Kuo, and Sullivan 2001). This study focused on elementary schools in the North
Texas area and their efforts to incorporate the outdoor environment into their curriculums.
The landscape of North Texas includes the nation’s largest urban hardwood forest (the
Great Trinity Forest in Dallas), watersheds of four major Texas rivers (Brazos, Sabine, Sulphur,
and Trinity rivers), and native prairies. The North Texas region has 6.7 million residents, covers
9,105 square miles, and includes more than 16 counties, with Dallas and Fort Worth as the
central cities (Vision North Texas 2008).
The geographic area represented in this study is referred to as the North Texas region.
The 16 counties in the study are those that form the North Central Texas Council of Governments
(NCTCOG): Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Erath, Hood, Hunt, Johnson, Kaufman, Navarro, Palo
Pinto, Parker, Rockwall, Somervell, Tarrant, and Wise (NCTCOG 2010).
Core areas of the North Texas region include the oldest parts of the center cities, Dallas
and Fort Worth. Inner Tier Communities include cities adjacent to Dallas and Fort Worth that
were largely developed by the 1990s. Parts of Fort Worth and Dallas developed after World War
II are also considered Inner Tier Communities. Outer Tier Communities have developed since
the 1980s and are further from the region’s two central cities. Some Outer Tier Communities are
Grapevine, Coppell, Frisco, and McKinney (NCTCOG 2010).
1.2 Problem Statement
Urbanization of lands, a focus on structured activities for children, and an emphasis on
the use of technological tools in the classroom have limited children’s exposure to the outdoor
environment, which is thereby becoming a missing component of children’s physical, emotional,
social, and intellectual experiences in public schools (Louv 2008; Kellert 2005; Taylor 2001).
Research indicates that the lack of contact between children and nature can also lead to health
and wellness issues (Louv 2008). A children-nature disconnect, referred to as Nature Deficit
Disorder (NDD), results from children’s restricted access and exposure to nature (2008). Some
of the consequences of insufficient exposure and interaction with nature include diminished use
4
of the senses, attention difficulties, and higher incidences of physical and psychological
disturbances such as depression (Louv 2008; NCLI Coalition 2009).
Another major consequence that stems from children’s limited access to nature is
obesity. A high level of inactivity is one of the causes of childhood obesity. Obesity can lead to
other serious health problems, which pose significant risks to the physical development of
children and can even lead to death if unresolved. It is important for children to have adequate
access to the outdoor environment as part of their educational experience in our school systems.
1.3 Definition of Key Terms
The following terms apply in the discussion of elementary schoolyard landscapes as
outdoor learning environments.
Affective learning: The process by which knowledge is gained from understanding how
something impacts, impresses, or influences a person emotionally (Kellert 2005).
Biophilia: The inclination to value nature; a presumably inherent biological affinity for the
natural environment (Wilson 1984).
Child: Every human being below the age of 18 years, unless applicable laws state
otherwise (Tai 2006).
Children’s garden: A designed and planned space for children to interact with nature (Tai
2006).
Cognitive learning: An intellectual process by which knowledge is gained from perception
or ideas; the formation of thinking and problem-solving skills. (Kellert 2005)
Ecological Literacy (eco-literacy): The ability to understand the principles that organize
and make ecosystems possible for their sustainability (Orr 1992).
Experiential learning: "The process whereby knowledge is created through the
transformation of experience. Knowledge results from the combination of grasping and
transforming experience" (Kolb 1984, 41).
5
Nature: In its broadest interpretation, the material world and all of its objects and
phenomena. Often, what is considered or termed as ―the outdoors‖ (Louv 2005).
Nature Deficit Disorder: The human costs of alienation from nature, which include the
diminished use of the senses, attention difficulties, and higher rates of physical and emotional
illness (Louv 2008).
Pattern: The relationship between aspects of the environment and how people
experience or react to them (Kaplan, Kaplan, and Ryan 1998).
Playground: A piece of ground for, and usually having special features for, recreation,
especially by children (Tai 2006).
Public domain: Shops, restaurants, airports, railway stations, and other public areas that
are distinct from the private territory of the family, the home, the motor car, or dedicated
institutions for children, such as a school or daycare center (Penn 2005).
Restorative environments: A natural environment that provides a setting for restorative
experiences from the fatigue created by processing information (Kaplan 1995).
Stakeholder: The people most affected by the management of a site because their lives
are directly affected by what happens to a particular area (Stein 1997, 79).
1.4 Research Method
The study uses a qualitative approach according to Taylor and Bogdan (1998) and
explores the perceived attributes of innovation of the NCLIA: relative advantage, compatibility,
complexity, trialability, and observability, as defined by Rogers (2003). Semi-structured, face-to-
face interviews were used to collect information about the respondents’ perceptions regarding
elementary schoolyard designs in the region. This study asks the following research questions to
explore the opinions of administrators, school designers, and parents regarding the benefits of
children’s exposure to and interaction with the outdoor environment.
6
1. What are the opinions held by stakeholders (school principals, school designers, and
parents of children in North Texas public schools) regarding the children’s experiences with the
outdoor environment?
2. What are the opinions held by these stakeholders regarding integration of the
outdoor environment in children’s educational experience?
3. What opinions are held by stakeholders regarding the No Child Left Inside Act?
4. What are stakeholder-perceived barriers to adoption of the No Child Left Inside Act in
North Texas public schools?
5. What are the perceived benefits of the adoption of the No Child Left Inside Act in
North Texas public schools?
1.5 Summary
Children need to be more exposed to the outdoor environment as part of their
educational experience (Kellert 2005). Changes in technology, urbanization, and the increasing
demands from class-work and structured activities have increased the disconnect between
children and the outdoor environment (Holmes 1998; Johnson 1998). The benefits of
incorporating the outdoor environment into the educational experiences of children are many,
including enhanced learning, increased focus, and more effective social interactions (Opotow
2003; Kahn 2002; Kellert 2002; Louv 2008; Taylor 2001). The lack of contact between children
and nature can lead to serious health and wellness issues (Titman 1994).
This study provides a better understanding of the importance of incorporating nature into
children’s educational experience in North Texas public schools. The results of this study
strengthen the existing literature on the importance of integrating the outdoor environment into
class curriculums and children’s general experiences in their schools.
The remainder of this document develops the subject thesis as follows:
7
• Chapter Two provides literature that supports the betterment of school landscapes to
allow for a connection between children and the outdoor environment and adoption of the No
Child Left Inside Act in public schools in North Texas. See ―Literature Review‖ on page 8.
• Chapter Three outlines the research methods used in this study and gives an
illustration of the process. See ―Research Methods‖ on page 31.
• Chapter Four reports the responses from the interviews and categorizes them for
analysis. See ―Results and Discussions‖ on page 38.
• Chapter Five presents conclusions based on the study and the perceptions of the
stakeholders of elementary schools in North Texas. In addition, chapter five includes suggestions
for future research. See ―Conclusions‖ on page 56.
8
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
Chapter 2 provides a review of the literature—first, literature that establishes the
connection between children and nature and describes the detrimental effects of disconnection.
Additional literature review speaks to the relationship between green schoolyards and multiple
aspects of child development.
2.2 Children and Nature Connection
Wohlwill (1983) defined nature as ―that vast domain of organic and inorganic matter that
is not a product of human activity or intervention‖ (Kellert 2005, 11). This description of nature,
although broad, is a good starting point for this research, because it encompasses the outdoor
environment referred to in this study. For the purposes of this study, the term nature includes
the material world and all of its objects and phenomena. In addition, nature is often what is
considered as or termed ―the outdoors‖ (Louv 2008, 8). However, this study focuses on the
integration of the outdoor environment into children’s educational experiences and other
experiences of the non-human world that are the deliberate product of human construction and
creation, which can affect the well-being of children (Kellert 2005). Understanding the role of
the outdoor environment in the holistic development of children has positive short- and long-
term effects on their well-being and academic achievement (2005).
In response to increased issues of declining health and wellness, a movement has
been emerging to restore children’s contact with nature, or outdoor environments (Clayton
2003; Kahn 2002; Kellert 2002; Louv 2008; Taylor 2001). Louv (2005) pathologized the
children-nature disconnect, referring to it as Nature Deficit Disorder (NDD). This term refers to
9
how children in modern times are highly restricted from playing outdoors, at home or in the
community (2005).
The negative consequences of children’s lack of physical activity and connection with
nature have been clearly documented (NCLIA 2009) and are supported by the literature.
Children spend up to 300 hours in school every year, which makes the school environment one
of the most important environments for child development (2009). Naturalization of schoolyards
can result in significant health and wellness benefits for children. Research suggests that
children seem to be happier, healthier, and more intellectually engaged when they have the
daily opportunity to interact in the natural environment (NCLIA 2009; Louv 2008; Kellert 2005).
Research also shows that academic performance gets better when children are exposed to the
outdoors (NCLIA 2009). The outdoor environment provides opportunities for children to
enhance their physical abilities and to use these sensorial experiences to better absorb learning
(Sobel 1993). Another main benefit of increased interaction with the outdoor environment is an
increased display of creativity. Children’s cooperative abilities, as well as their problem-solving
skills, are strengthened when they enjoy regular, quality exposure to nature as part of their
educational experience (2009).
Reconnection with the outdoors enhances children’s perception of nature, promoting
understanding and respect for the elements and living things (Sobel 1993; White 2004). One
goal of reconnecting children with their outdoor environment is to engage them with all living
systems in an organized manner, so they can gain a better understanding of how those systems
work and how children fit into all ecosystems (Orr 1992). Schoolyards can provide the
resources for enhanced learning through hands-on experiences with nature. Children
experience nature through direct, indirect, and vicarious experience (Gardner 1991). A direct
experience with the outdoor environment puts children in close contact with the wilderness,
which includes plants, animals, and habitats that function independently from human
intervention.
10
Children derive cognitive, affective, and developmental benefits from their exposure
with nature (Children and Nature Network 2009). Children can understand concepts and apply
new knowledge that stems from their experience with the outdoor environment. They are also
better able to understand cause-and-effect relationships from their observations in nature (Orr
1992). Besides acquiring knowledge, children are better able to comprehend ideas and
information through their observations and experiments with elements of the outdoor
environment (White 2004). As children mature, they can apply their knowledge and
comprehension of the natural environment into other aspects of their lives (Chawla 2006; Sobel
2008; White 2004; Wilson 1997).
The outdoor environment allows children to play, which is one of the basic rights of
children and one of the activities they like the most. Play enhances communication, promotes
cooperation, strengthens interpersonal problem solving, and encourages creativity, personal
responsibility, and use of the imagination (Malone 2003; Hart 1994). Exposure to outdoor
activities, such as free play in the wilderness, also increases the social awareness of children.
Children learn from nature without human intervention. The natural curiosity of children
allows them to learn through immersion in the outdoor environment. By doing, exploring,
discovering, trial and error, children learn valuable lessons in the outdoor environment (Malone
2003). Connection with the outdoor environment increases children’s concentration and their
motor abilities (Malone and Tranter 2003). One of the simplest benefits of the outdoors, and
probably one of the most understated advantages of children’s interaction with their outdoor
environment, is prevention of boredom. Boredom can lead to increased levels of aggression in
children, which could pose risks to their social, physical, and cognitive development (2003).
Research shows that children have an innate attraction to natural environments
(Chawla 2006; Louv 2008; Sobel 2008). According to Malone and Tranter (2003), children
display a preference to play in natural or wild spaces. The diversity of nature and the feelings of
freedom and timelessness that nature brings provide an important environment for children’s
11
growth (Louv 2008; Orr 1992; Malone 2003). Children develop a sense of place when they are
in direct contact with the natural environment (Malone 2003; Orr 1992). Interaction with
vegetation, the earth, other people, and animals enhances children’s feelings of belonging with
their outdoor environment (Orr 1992). Adults recall that significant experiences of their
childhood often involved outdoor environments (Chawla 2006; Gebhard, Ulrich, Nevers 2003;
Rivkin 1997; Sobel 2008; Louv 2008).
Experiential learning is facilitated through children’s connection with the outdoor
environment. Experiential learning is defined as ―the process whereby knowledge is created
through the transformation of experience. Knowledge results from the combination of grasping
and transforming experience‖ (Kolb 1984, 41). Kolb (1984) proposes that experiential learning
occurs as a result of four factors: concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract
conceptualization, and active experimentation. The experiential cycle begins with an
experience, followed by an opportunity to engage in reflection of that experience. Children then
draw conclusions based on their experience and observations, to apply a behavior toward the
current or future situations. The outdoor environment permits children to engage in this learning
cycle inconspicuously.
Kellert (2005) proposed that children can experience nature from different perspectives.
He proposed nine ways in which children may attach meaning and derive benefit from nature,
as defined in table 2.1.
Table 2.1 Typology of Values in Nature (Kellert 2005)
Value Definition
Utilitarian Value Practical and material exploitation of nature
Naturalistic Value Direct experience and exploration of nature
Scientific Value Study and empirical observation of nature
Aesthetic Value Physical appeal of and attraction to nature
Symbolic Value Nature as a source of metaphorical and communitive thought
Moralistic Value Moral and spiritual relation to nature
12
Table 2.1 – Continued
Value Definition
Dominionistic Value Mastery and control of nature
Negativistic Value Fear and aversion to nature
Humanistic Value Emotional attachment to nature
A connection with the outdoor environment allows children to adopt utilitarian,
naturalistic, scientific, aesthetic, symbolic, moralistic, and humanistic values toward nature
(Kellert 2005). By contrast, the lack of connection with the outdoor environment leads to the
formation of dominionistic and negativistic values toward everything that has not been created
by man’s intervention (2005). The result is seeing the outdoor environment as a possession to
control or having an aversion toward the environment in which there is a lack of engagement
and lack of comprehension about the symbiotic relationship between humans and the elements
that exist without human intervention (2005).
2.2.1 Children-Nature Disconnection
Although the benefits of children’s contact with the outdoor environment have been well
documented and discussed (Kellert 2005; Louv 2008; Malone 2003; Orr 1992; White 2004), the
urbanization of living places has limited children’s exposure to the outdoor environment.
Consequently, children have a shortage of outdoor experiences (White 2004). Opportunities
are diminishing for exploration and learning through their immersion in the outdoor environment
(Chawla 2006; Freuder 2006; Kellert 2002; Malone 2003; Pyle 2002). Many children have
restricted or no access to outdoor environments, and especially a lack of interaction and access
to nature on their own (Malone 2003). As a result of the rapid expansion of cities and growth in
population, the natural environment is shrinking, thus reducing the possibilities for children to
develop a close relationship with nature (Kyttä 2004). Schoolyards have also suffered the
effects of growth and urbanization with fewer natural spaces for children.
13
Development of urban areas and communities has decreased the outdoor
environments available for children (Lennard 2000). Parents have limited time to supervise
their children’s play activities, and safety concerns prevent parents from allowing children to
play outside alone. Traffic has also become a safety hazard for children playing in the outdoors,
as streets and cities become more populated and motor vehicle transit increases (Frumkin
2004). The safety of children in nature could be in unprecedented danger due to human
intervention (Freuder 2006).
Technology has affected how children experience the world (Doherty and Carlson 2003;
Weir 2006). The emphasis on the use of technology in the classroom has placed the focus on
machines over the outdoor environment (Freuder 2006). Technology also affects the amount of
time and the way children interact with nature when they are out of school. TV viewing and
playing video games have replaced the times when children could be experiencing the outdoor
environment (2006).
Increased pollution, changes in the planet’s climate, the decrease in size and
availability of the outdoor environment, and shrinkage of natural ecosystems are problems that
humanity faces in modern times (Chawla 2006). Children cannot be expected to take a
proactive approach to solve the problems of the planet when they do not know their planet
(Freuder 2006; Chawla 2006). The disconnection between children and nature has serious
implications for children’s present and future development and for the future state of our natural
environment.
2.2.2 Nature Deficit Disorder
The term Nature Deficit Disorder (NDD) was developed by Louv (2005) to describe
what happens to young people who become disconnected from their natural world. NDD is
defined in terms of the human costs of alienation from the outdoors. Louv (2005) links this lack
of nature experience to some of the most disturbing childhood trends, such as the rises in
14
obesity, attention disorders, and depression (NCLI 2009). Nature deficit disorder is not an
official medical diagnosis; however, its implications could be serious.
According to Freuder (2006), the lack of children’s outdoor activity is associated with
the drastic rise in childhood obesity. According to Louv (2005), two out of 10 children in the
United States are clinically obese. The lack of contact with nature could lead to serious effects
on children’s development and well-being (Freuder 2006; Louv 2008; Taylor 2001; Taylor 2009).
Among the consequences of limited exposure to the outdoor environment, is that humans
experience diminished use of their senses, attention difficulties, and higher rates of physical and
emotional illnesses.
NDD can be detected in individuals, families, and communities. Nature deficit can
change human behavior in cities, which could affect their design. Longitudinal studies show a
relationship between the absence or inaccessibility to parks and open spaces with high crime
rates, depression, and other urban maladies (Louv 2008). Limited access to outdoor activities
also increases the prescription of drugs for children. Under or no exposure to the outdoor
environment increases the use of drugs to treat conditions such as Attention Deficit and
Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) (Freuder 2006; Taylor 2001; Taylor 2009). In short, the physical
health of children is at risk because of their lack of exposure to the outdoor environment.
2.2.3 No Child Left Inside Movement
Many schools have responded to the requirements of the Federal No Child Left Behind
law of 1965 by sacrificing subjects such as environmental education to spend more time on
subjects that are found on high-stakes tests. Teachers and parents report that field trips and
time devoted to outdoor learning activities have been cut to give more time to tested subjects
(NCLIA 2009).
The No Child Left Inside Act addresses this problem by giving new incentives and
support to school systems to incorporate environmental education in their curriculums (2009).
As it currently stands, the Act authorizes 100 million dollars in 2010–2014 to fund programs that
15
bring the classroom outside. The Act recognizes that high-quality environmental education
requires students to use math, reading, science, and writing skills. However, the Act also aims
to expand the understanding of schools about the importance of outdoor experiences in
children’s education.
The NCLIA was introduced in Congress on Earth Day (April 22) of 2009. The main goal
of the NCLIA of 2009 is to provide environmental education in the classroom and to offer
schools support to implement outdoor learning programs. Proponents of the Act propose that
contact with the outdoors benefits children at many levels. One of the major benefits proposed
by the NCLIA is preparing children for a world in which green economies and jobs are
increasingly prevalent. The world, and specifically the United States, is transitioning to a green
economy (Higgs and McMillan 2006). The future will provide career opportunities for children to
apply their ecological literacy. Thus, children need the opportunity to develop a sense of
wonder and become excited about their natural environment (Davis 1998). Doing so also
makes way for scientific inquiry, which enhances mathematical and scientific skills useful for
problem solving (Tai 2006). Besides the cognitive benefits from allowing children to engage in
the outdoors, the NCLIA promotes a healthier lifestyle for children, which could benefit them in
the present as well as the future.
2.3 Green Schoolyards and Learning
2.3.1 Multi-sensory Learning
Multi-sensory learning happens when more than one sense is involved in the learning
experience (Stine 1997). When children are exposed to the outdoor environment, they develop
a learning style using multiple senses. According to White and Stoecklin (2006), people find
natural environments to be pleasant places, which improves their ability to recall information,
enhances creative problem solving skills, and improves creativity. When children are exposed
16
to the natural environment, they develop their imagination and sense of wonder (Gardner 1991;
Fjortoft 2001). A sense of wonder is an important motivator to develop lifelong learning.
Children use more of their senses when they play in the outdoors, and therefore,
experience enhanced learning (Armstrong 2009; Bloom 1984). In the outdoor environment,
children are free to strip off their expected social behaviors, which in turn encourages their
sense of wonder and development of independence and promotes the use of creativity, as well
as math, social, and science skills (Leiberman and Hoody 1998). Children experience a
freedom to shout, interact with and manipulate the outdoor environment, and do activities that
are considered messy and allow for physical freedom, which the indoor environment might not
provide (Gardner 1991).
The outdoor environment provides a natural diversity of things to experiment with.
White and Stoecklin (2006) indicate that children judge the natural environment, not by its
appearance, but by the way they can interact with it. Manipulation of the elements in nature—
plants, dirt, sand, water, bugs—help children learn to engage more than one of their senses
(Rivkin 1997; Stine 1997). Open-ended play results from their interaction with nature, in which
creative exploration leads to learning filled with excitement and stimulation. Sounds, smells,
images, textures, and colors are all part of the experience with all the elements of nature,
providing a rounded learning outcome (White and Stoecklin 1998).
2.3.2 The Eighth Intelligence
Outdoor learning encourages creative play, which affords different types of learning
(Wong 1997). The importance of this variety of learning opportunities is supported by Gardner
(1999) in his theory of multiple intelligences. His theory is an alternative to the IQ test, the
traditional measure of intelligence for the evaluation of human potential. This theory challenged
prevalent beliefs about intelligence that permeated the fields of education and cognitive
knowledge. According to Gardner as proposed by Armstrong (1999), intelligence is the ability to
17
create a concrete product of value for a specific culture, a set of skills that aid in the problem-
solving process, and the potential to acquire new knowledge to assist in creating solutions.
In 1983, Gardner used neurophysiology research to identify parts of the brain that
correspond to the different categories of intelligence:
1. Linguistic intelligence (being word smart)
2. Logical–mathematical intelligence (being number and reasoning smart)
3. Spatial intelligence (being picture smart)
4. Body-kinesthetic intelligence (being body smart)
5. Musical intelligence (being musically smart)
6. Interpersonal intelligence (being people smart)
7. Intrapersonal intelligence (being self smart)
The latest intelligence category added to his theory is Naturalist Intelligence—being
nature smart, a bio-psychological potential to process information that can be activated in a
cultural setting to solve problems or create products of value within a culture (Louv 2008;
Gardner 1999). Gardner (1999) argues that the educational process that introduces material
and builds understanding can be done through multiple approaches to engage students in a
particular topic. Development of outdoor learning environments as a hands-on approach to
learning allows children to engage through activities where they can build something,
manipulate materials, or carry out experiments (Gardner 1999). The naturalist intelligence
provides the framework for the child to learn from the natural environment through an
experiential approach, rather than from theories in books or the use of artificial media (1999).
Schools and cultures emphasize linguistic and logical-mathematical intelligence, placing
higher importance on people who display logical intelligence (Armstrong 2009). On the other
hand, society does not attribute equal importance to individuals who display different types of
intelligences other than logical and linguistic. This multiple intelligences theory proposes that
schools ought to find new and varied ways to appeal to various styles of learning and the unique
18
intelligences of students. An experience in the outdoor environment is an effective way to
appeal to the multiple intelligences of children in a school setting (2009).
2.3.3 Cognitive Development
Bloom et al. (1984) identify six stages in normal intellectual development, moving from
relatively simple to more complex levels of understanding, problem solving, and thinking. The
taxonomy of cognitive development includes the following stages: 1) knowledge, 2)
comprehension, 3) application, 4) analysis, 5) synthesis, and 6) evaluation (Kellert 2005). In the
first stage of cognitive development, knowledge, the major task is forming basic understanding
of facts and terms, creating rudimentary classifications, and crudely discerning casual
relationships. The outdoor environment greatly aids this emerging capacity, because it affords
numerous stimulating and engaging opportunities to identify and order basic information,
concepts, and ideas. The young child continually confronts opportunities to assign names and
categories to basic features of his or her life, including plants, birds, mammals, habitats, and
landscapes (Kellert 2005).
Contact with nature in the cognitive maturation of children is also identified in the
second stage of intellectual development, comprehension. Both real and imagined encounters
with the outdoor environment offer children a wide range of accessible and emotionally salient
opportunities to develop the ability to analyze, assimilate, and comprehend facts and ideas from
hands-on contact with the outdoor environment (Wells 2000; Wells and Evans 2003).
2.4 Green Landscapes: Social and Behavioral Development
Research offers both theory and evidence to support the notion that the physical and
mental well-being of humans inextricably depends on the quality of their experience with the
natural environment (Kellert 2005; Cheskey 2001; Leiberman and Hoody 1998). Kellert (2005)
considered this explanation of reliance in the notions of ecosystem services, biophilia, and the
spirit of place, concepts that are rooted in biology. This theory proposes that the experiences of
people with their natural environment shape their experiences, learning, and culture (2005).
19
Studies propose that early contact with nature has positive effects in children
(Leiberman and Hoody 1998; Titman 1994; Moore 1986). As part of their school experience,
children apply knowledge gained in the classroom in the outdoor environment, where they
engage in multi-sensorial learning experiences.
2.4.4 Environment and Behavior
Attention Restoration Theory (ART) asserts that people can concentrate better after
spending time in outdoor environments or just looking at nature scenes (Kaplan 1995b). ART
proposes that a person goes through different states of attention: 1) directed attention, 2)
directed attention fatigue, 3) effortless attention, and 4) restored attention. Tasks that require
mental effort draw upon directed attention. People must expend the effort to achieve focus,
delay expression of inappropriate emotions or actions, and inhibit distractions. That is, they
must concentrate on the higher task. Toward the end of the attention cycle, attention may be
restored by changing to a different kind of task that uses different parts of the brain.
Likewise, exposure to outdoor environments and wilderness promotes attention
restoration. Natural environments abound with soft fascinations that one can reflect upon in
effortless attention—clouds moving across the sky, leaves rustling in a breeze, or water
bubbling over rocks in a stream. The Biophilia hypothesis argues that people are instinctively
enthusiastic about nature. Effortless attention (through soft fascinations) gives people a chance
to reflect. Reflection has a restorative benefit, which allows further focused attention (Kaplan
1995; Berto 1995; Korpela 1996).
In relation to children’s well-being, there is particular focus on the link between contact
with the outdoors and alleviation of ADHD symptoms. Taylor (2001) and Kuo (2003) found that
outdoor activity as simple as a walk in the park has benefits for children with Attention Deficit
Hyperactivity Disorder, by increasing their concentration levels and generally easing ADHD
symptoms. The study also found that ADHD symptoms were less severe for children who had
the opportunity to play in outdoor settings.
20
Contact with the outdoor environment has been clearly shown to have stress reducing
and attention restoring properties (Taylor 2009; Kaplan 1995b). Outdoor spaces offer a place
for reflection and refocus of attention. In other words, terms such as ―clearing your head‖ and
―recharging your batteries‖ in nature have psychological validity (Taylor 2001). Harper (2007)
reports positive observations of adolescents participating in outdoor activities. Nature seems to
have a calming effect and restores the ability of the brain to think clearly.
2.4.5 Social Development
According to Malone and Tranter (2003), the ways in which children relate to each other
can be strongly influenced by the natural elements with which they play in their outdoor
environments. Studies note that when children play in structured environments built by
humans, they establish hierarchies as a means of physical competence. In man-made
environments, children seem to be more concerned with play in which they can display power
and dominance. But when children play outdoors, they focus more on fantasy play and
socialization. In an outdoor environment, the display of power is replaced by a better command
of language and using creativity and inventiveness to imagine transformation of the space
(2003). When playing in the outdoors, dominant children are less driven for social dominance.
The outdoors instills patience in children, as well as ignites interest and promotes a
sense of presence (Nix 2010). For example, gardening promotes patience because the harvest
does not happen overnight. Gardening promotes cooperation between children and allows
them to work collaboratively, by assessing and applying their skills and acquiring new ones. In
that cooperation, trust is founded and respect rises. The relaxed environment promotes a full
integration of the child in seeking cooperation from others and volunteering to work in
collaboration (Nix 2010). Interaction with the environment also builds a positive, egalitarian
relationship with our ecosystems (Harper 2007).
21
2.5 Green Schoolyards and Play
2.5.1 Preference for Natural Settings
According to Muñoz (2009), children prefer less-managed spaces. Children have a
natural inclination toward the outdoors and are drawn to their outdoor environment, which
includes not only their community playgrounds and green spaces, but also forests, wild spaces,
and the countryside (Titman 1994). Children are attracted to a natural environment more than
they are to playgrounds (Muñoz 2009). Using their imagination, they can manipulate their
surroundings without restriction of meaning or use (Harper 2008; Titman 1994). Research
proposes that typical playground design fails to satisfy all the needs and expectations of
children when it comes to outdoor activities (Moore 2006). Muñoz reports that one study shows
children ages 10–14 prefer to play in natural areas, which includes cornfields and the woods.
The research also shows that it is important for children to develop a sense of
belonging with outdoor places (Harper 2008; Hart 1994). Children develop a sense of presence
with nature, applying their own meaning to their surroundings, when they are able to claim
specific places in the outdoors as special or secret. This aids in the construction of their
personal identities (Muñoz 2009).
2.5.2 Play Behavior in Natural Settings
Sobel (2008) identifies seven play motifs of all children regardless of socioeconomic
status, ethnicity, racial background, or ecological surrounding. One motif is constructing
adventures. The experience in the outside environment is kinesthetic. Children stalk, balance,
jump, and scamper through natural outside environments. Activities with a physical challenge
component engage multiple senses. Children are prompted to use more of their physical
abilities when they are outdoors.
The second motif is descending into fantasies. Young children live in their
imaginations. They engage in learning through stories, plays, puppet shows, and fantasy. The
outdoor environment provides the stimulation for children to fantasize, use inanimate objects
22
and attribute human or animal characteristics to them, play openly and freely with others, and
develop open-ended story lines in which the possibilities are endless (Sobel 2008).
The third motif in outdoor play is developing friendships with animals. Sobel (1996)
points out, ―In our environmental wars, the emphasis has been on saving species, not becoming
them‖. But children are better able to relate to nature when they are exposed to it as kindred
beings. Education about the ecosystem and the wild acquires a deeper meaning when children
learn from experience. Messages such as ―save the planet‖ or wildlife carry a tangible aspect
when children have been immersed in the natural environment.
Another motif found in children’s nature play is figuring out shortcuts. Following a map
to a secret event, figuring out what follows after a turn, and finding shortcuts are among the
strategies children develop and implement when they play outdoors. Children have an innate
curiosity to explore their natural habitat. Exploration of their natural places promotes a
bioregional sense of place and biospheric consciousness.
Constructing adventures is the fifth motif found in nature play. Children between the
ages of eight and 11 engage in play in which they find or create places where they can hide
away and retreat. Children are particularly interested in finding challenges in the natural
environment or to tackle and find solutions to problems for which they can use their natural
instincts and objects found in a natural environment.
Sobel (1993) refers to a sixth motif of shaping small worlds. Children enjoy building
small spaces in which to play. They create miniature representations of ecosystems, which
allows them to gain an enhanced sense of reality of their world. Creating small worlds allows
children to use concrete actions to understand abstract ideas.
As proposed by Sobel (1993), the seventh motif is playing hunting and gathering. By
nature humans are hunting and gathering beings. Searching and collecting is a preferred
activity of children. According to Sobel (2008), learning opportunities for children should be like
treasure hunts.
23
2.6 Green Schoolyards and Eco-literacy
2.6.1 Environmental Awareness
The relationship between children and the outdoor environment is important, not only
for the well-being of children, but also for the health of the planet. For example, cultivating
relationships between children and trees could lead to their future efforts toward saving the
rainforest. Talking to trees and hiding in trees precede saving trees (Chawla 2006; Sobel 2008;
White 2004, Wilson 1997). An ecological literate is someone with ―the knowledge necessary to
comprehend interrelatedness and an attitude of care or stewardship‖ and who has ―the practical
competence required to act on the basis of knowledge and feeling‖ (Orr 1992, 86).
Environmental education curriculum is a requirement of 30 states in the United States, and
while trips to environmental education centers can expose children to natural systems, these
experiences are often disconnected with the natural environments and processes found in their
everyday settings (Orr 1992). As a component of curriculum, environmental education should
influence the development of school landscapes as places for learning (Orr 1992; Sobel 2008).
2.6.2 Environmental Connection
Wilson (1997) states that we have an ―innate affinity for life and life-like process.‖
Humans have evolved with nature. Human evolution involves co-evolving with other life forms
on earth as a natural progression of existence. Therefore, people have a deep need to feel
connected and rooted with nature (Bunting and Cousins 1985; Harvey 1989; Orr 2009).
Hart (1994) and Sobel (2008) propose that it is especially important for children
between the ages of nine and 12 to be in contact with their natural surroundings. To develop
the self and an individual relationship with the natural world, it is critical for children to develop a
close relationship with their outdoor environment (Sobel 1993).
In the elementary school years, exploration of the landscape is key (Cohen and Horm-
Wingerg 1993; Kellert 2002; Phenice and Griffore 2003; Sobel 1996; Wilson 1993). At this
stage of development, children are fascinated with what lies beyond their familiar range. Nature
24
becomes a special place for children to expand the scope of their world and process nature into
their development (Sobel 1996).
2.6.3 Environmental Education
Environmental education is the study of the relationships and interactions between
dynamic natural and human systems (NCLI 2009). Environmental education includes learning
in the field as well as in the classroom. Environmental education incorporates the teaching
methods of outdoor education, experiential education, and place-based education. This
learning experience is also interdisciplinary and promotes school and community partnerships.
Environmental education is hands-on, student-centered, and inquiry-driven and engages higher
level thinking skills that are relevant to students’ everyday lives. Nature-focused learning
develops awareness about the natural environment, increases knowledge in many areas, builds
interpersonal, social, and motor skills, and creates the capacity for stewardship and good
citizenship regarding the environment, which humans depend upon for survival (Chawla 2006;
NCLI 2009; Pyle 2002; Sobel 1996).
Environmental education helps to address the causes of Nature Deficit Disorder by
allowing children to have a close, prolonged relationship with the outdoor environment.
According to the No Child Left Inside Coalition (NCLI 2009), another benefit of environmental
education is that it boosts student performance on standardized measures of academic
achievement in math, science, reading, writing, and social studies. According to Orr (1992), ―we
all have an affinity for the natural world.‖ Orr refers to environmental education as an
educational revolution, the goal of which is ―the re-connection of the young people with their
own habitats and communities. The classroom is the ecology of the surrounding community,
not the confining four walls of the traditional school.‖
Moore and Wong (1997) describe three ―domains of education‖ that should be
supported in the design of school landscapes:
25
• Informal education – encompasses all learning from a child’s daily experiences, of
which play is a central quality.
• Formal education – characterized as the familiar context of a teacher presenting
material to children in a class context.
• Non-formal education – defined as a bridge between these two forms, where
people may facilitate learning in non-classroom settings, such as natural outside areas and
community facilities. (Moore 1997, 195–196)
In summary, ecological literacy stems from environmental education. By connecting
children with nature through experience, schools make an impact as students learn about the
problems with the world’s ecosystems. Environmental education teaches students to live in
harmony with the natural environment. Ecological literacy brings understanding regarding our
interdependence with nature: nature needs us and we need nature.
2.7 Green Schoolyards and Health
According to the Sustainable Development Commission (2008), children are one of the
key social groups that could gain health benefits from the use of outdoor spaces. Interest is
emerging in the development and implementation of research and policies regarding children
and the use of outdoor spaces (2008). Maller (2006) proposes that children can experience
mental, physical, and emotional benefits from access to the outdoors. Interaction with the
outdoor environment reduces behavioral problems in schools (2006). Studies suggest that the
role of outdoor spaces in promoting and facilitating their use could be an important component
in the fight for enhanced public health and reduced health inequalities (Sustainable
Development Commission 2008).
2.7.1 Psychological Benefits of Access to the Outdoor Environment
As discussed, outdoor play has many benefits for children (Harper 2007; Kuo 2003;
Maller 2006; Taylor 2001). Among those benefits, children enjoy lower levels of stress when
they engage in play in natural environments (Orr 1992). Another benefit is the reduction of
26
problems such as depression (Taylor 2009; Kaplan 1995). Playing in the outdoors also reduces
levels of aggression and violence in children (Orr 1992). One of the major psychological
benefits of access to outdoor spaces is the reduction in the severity of attention deficit disorder
(Malone 2002; Phillips 2006). Children who engage in outdoor play seem to be happier (NCLIA
2009; Douglas 2005).
2.7.2 Therapeutic Benefits of Access to Outdoor Spaces
Olmsted argued that people’s physical and mental health depends on regular contact
with attractive natural scenery. Olmsted expressed, ―A man’s eyes cannot be as much
occupied as they are in large cities by artificial things … without a harmful effect, first on his
mental and nervous system and ultimately on his entire constitutional organization… The
charm of natural scenery is an influence of the highest curative value‖ (in Williams 2003, 49).
2.7.3 Benefits of Access to Outdoor Spaces on Obesity
Obesity is a growing epidemic in the United States, as children become increasingly
obese (NCLI 2009). In the 1960s obesity in children was close to four percent, compared to
2004 when obesity was close to 20 percent, which means one out of five children is seriously
overweight (Lin 2008). Children’s inactivity and limited access to the outdoors do not help to
alleviate the problem with obesity. Obesity has major health implications for children. If left
untreated, obesity can promote long-term problems and even lead to death.
Sedentary lifestyles promote the lack of physical activity. One of the keys to tackling
contemporary health problems, such as obesity, is to create environments that encourage
greater levels of physical activity. Outdoor spaces promote physical activity and provide for
cardiovascular activity, which impacts obesity (Chief Medical Officer 2004). Allowing children
access to the outdoors could encourage them to increase their physical activity levels, which
can positively affect obesity. Higher levels of activity in the outdoors can also help prevent
obesity (Chief Medical Officer 2004; Weir 2006).
27
2.8 Green Schoolyards and Outdoor Learning
2.8.1 Outdoor Classroom
Greater engagement with the outdoors throughout the curriculum for primary and
secondary school-aged children can bring benefits associated with a greater connection with
nature. Tunnicliffe (2008) gives one example of the merits of investigating a pond as a site of
―biology and science education.‖ Among the benefits of this activity are the integration of social
learning skills and an increase in eco-literacy. When children learn through the use of natural
environments, they can apply many skills and have a multi-sensorial learning experience
(2008).
Besides the educational benefits of the outdoor classroom, Groves and McNish (2008)
propose that classroom-type schooling that is conducted outdoors increases children’s level of
physical activity. O’Brien and Murray (2005) suggest that the outdoor classroom promotes
creativity and language development. Education that happens out of the classroom has positive
effects not only in students, but also in teachers (Moore 1997). Teachers have the opportunity
to apply a different set of skills when teaching in the outdoors. Some of the benefits of
children’s interaction with natural outdoor environments apply also to teachers, who benefit from
decreased levels of stress, more creativity, and a refocus of their attention.
Tabbush and O’Brien (2003) point out that outdoor education does not need to be
focused in learning about the natural environment. Any subject is viable for teaching in the
outdoors. For example, math can be strengthened with illustrations from the natural
environment. Social studies can be taught using examples from nature. Reading can be
reinforced with the kinesthetic experience of being outdoors (2003).
2.8.2 Wildscapes
Centuries ago, children were raised surrounded by fields, farms, or wild outdoor
environments. According to White (2004), throughout history, when children had the freedom to
play, they usually chose wild places such as large hardwood trees, shrubs, bodies of water, or
28
woodland forests in the vicinity of their homes. Berg and Medrich (1980) suggest that children
prefer the less-managed places such as the wild.
One of the duties of The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department is to promote the
development of Wildscapes. Wildscapes are places for restoration and conservation of natural
habitats in rural and urban areas (TPWD 2009). By educating the public in the development of
wildlife habitats in the places they work, live, and play, the effort enables residents to contribute
to wildlife conservation. Wildscapes can be an important component of the outdoor experience
(Lester 2006).
Wildscapes provide the means to bring diversity into living spaces (TPWD 2009).
Wildscapes provide the space, food, water, and shelter for a variety of wildlife. Wildscapes
attract birds and small mammals, among other species, and supply them with the safety and
nourishment they need to escape from predators when they are young. Animals can use
wildscapes to raise their offspring. All these components of wildscapes can enrich children’s
learning experiences in the outdoors, especially for those in cities and places where access to
the natural environment is limited (Berg 1980; Dannenmaier 1998; Hart 1982).
2.8.3 Edible Gardens
Schoolyard gardens increase the diversity of the wildlife around a school and enrich
children’s educational experience. Gardens extend and enhance the opportunities for children
to socialize, learn from hands-on experience, and participate in a project that allows them to
acquire practical skills, as well as apply existing ones (Kawamura 2010). The establishment of
gardens in schoolgrounds is an activity that allows educators to impart lessons in science, math,
language, social studies, nutrition, environmental sciences, physical education, and agriculture.
Multiple intelligences are engaged through gardening (Dannenmaier 1998). Visual stimulation
is also one of the benefits of school gardens. Visual images of the garden can reinforce lessons
from the classroom and improve memorization.
29
Produce, flowers, and herbs provide a multi-sensorial experience for students when
they are exposed to different textures, smells, and tastes. Gardens can be interesting places in
which children can grow the food they eat (Nix 2010). Students learn about food systems and
the ecological principles of the food chain. While gardening, children increase their knowledge
about health and how to maintain healthier living habits. Gardening can complement nutrition
education and improve the attitudes of children toward whole grains, vegetables, and healthier
foods in general.
Other lessons to be learned through gardening are the importance of recycling and how
to do composting (Tai 2006). Children’s sense of morality and ethics is enhanced through the
opportunity to engage in school gardening activities (Stone and Center for Ecoliteracy 2009).
Research shows that gardening activities reduce absenteeism, decrease discipline issues, and
increase grade-point averages (CASEL 2008; CDC 2010).
Through gardening children develop civility, enhance communication and cooperation,
engage in decision making, experience delayed gratification, get a sense of independence and
ownership, practice patience, exert responsibility, develop teamwork, and assert responsibility,
through which self-esteem, self-understanding, self-confidence, and self-discipline can be
mastered (Bennett 2010; Tai 2006). As a result, children strengthen their positive
environmental attitudes and perspectives as integral parts of the community.
2.9 Summary
The development of urban areas and communities has decreased the outdoor spaces
available for children (Churchman 2003; Frumkin 2004; Johnson 2002). Technology has also
affected how children experience the world. Some authors have pathologized the disconnection
between children and nature, referring to it as Nature Deficit Disorder. This term refers to how
children in modern times are highly restricted from playing outdoors, at home or in the
community (Louv 2008). In response to increased issues of declining health and wellness
because of the lack of contact with nature, a movement is emerging to restore children’s contact
30
with nature. The No Child Left Inside Act of 2009 addresses the problem by giving new
incentives and support to school systems to incorporate environmental education in their
curriculums. The Act aims to expand schools’ understanding about the importance of outdoor
experiences in children’s education (NCLIA 2009).
The outdoor environment provides opportunities for children to enhance their physical
abilities and use sensorial experiences to better absorb learning (Sobel 1993). Reconnection
with the outdoors enhances children’s perception of nature, promoting understanding and
respect for the elements and living things (1993). Both real and imagined encounters with
outside environments offer children a wide range of accessible and emotionally salient
opportunities to develop their ability to analyze, assimilate, and comprehend facts and ideas,
from hands-on contact with the natural environment (Leiberman 1998).
Environmental education strengthens lessons learned in science, math, language,
social studies, nutrition, environmental sciences, physical education, and agriculture (Chiles
2005). Children engage their multiple intelligences through the use of the outdoor environment,
which promotes growth, develops a social conscience, enhances learning, creates a sense of
place, and instills moral and ethical values (Chawla 2006; Clayton 2003; Kahn 2002; Kellert
2002; Lindemann-Mathies 2006; Louv 2008; Malone 2003; NCLI 2009; Sobel 2008; Stone and
Center for Ecoliteracy 2009; Taylor 2001; White 2004; Wilson 1997).
31
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODS
3.1 Introduction
The purpose of this study was to obtain descriptive information from appropriate
stakeholders regarding their opinions about integration of the outdoor environment into
children’s educational experiences and implementation of the No Child Left Inside Act (NCLIA)
in North Texas public schools.
Face-to-face interviews were conducted as the method for data collection. This study
used a qualitative approach, which allows participants to express themselves freely and openly
about the topic. According to Creswell (1994), a qualitative study employs an inquiry process to
understand a social problem, forming a holistic picture with the detailed views of the informants
and conducted in a natural setting. Qualitative studies are suitable to identify perceptions and
attitudes, which are the focus of this study.
Quantitative studies are best suited for testing theories composed of variables,
measured with numbers, and analyzed through statistical procedures to make generalizations
about the theory (Creswell 1994). For this study, however, the researcher did not want to limit
the responses, to allow for full descriptions to be offered, which works best with a qualitative
approach. The data from this study lays the foundation for future research, because the open-
ended questions led to various sets of responses, worth exploring with further qualitative or
quantitative methods.
3.2 Research Methodology
The interview sample consisted of 12 subjects comprising school principals, school
designers, and parents. The school principals were selected because of their role as the main
32
decision makers in the schools. Their participation for NCLIA adoption is important for its
successful implementation.
School landscape designers incorporate a school’s recommendations and guidelines in
the implementation of the NCLIA in such schools. As the people who conceptualize the Act and
make it operational and functional, they are a valuable resource for the research.
Parents are the managers of their children’s education and one of any school’s principal
stakeholder groups. The representation of parents in the study is from presidents of the Parent
Teacher Associations (PTA) of the participating schools.
The research used a face-to-face, semi-structured interview protocol to gather
information from the respondents. The interview questions were open-ended to allow the
respondents to offer descriptive information about their knowledge and opinions regarding the
topic, without limiting their responses to a specific set of choices. If further clarification was
needed or if respondents required additional information about a topic that was unknown to
them, an unscripted follow-up question was asked. The interviews were recorded using a
(Sony) digital voice recorder.
The interview recordings were sent electronically to a professional transcription service,
Verbal Ink Transcription Services, through their website (www.verbalink.com). A Verbal Ink
employee transcribed the interviews and sent the transcription in a Microsoft Word document
format to the researcher via email. The researcher analyzed the interview transcripts to identify
common themes among the respondents’ opinions.
The information gathered from the interviews was also analyzed to assess NCLIA
adoption according to the attributes of innovations described by Rogers (2003). According to
Rogers, five variables contribute to the rate of adoption of any innovation:
• Perceived attributes of the innovation
• Type of innovation decision
• Communications channels
33
• Nature of the social system
• Extent of the promotion efforts of the agents
This research explored the perspectives of the respondents regarding the first variable
in the adoption of innovation—the five perceived attributes: relative advantage, compatibility,
complexity, trialability, and observability, described as follows.
3.2.1 Relative Advantage
Rogers (2003, 212) defines relative advantage as ―the degree to which an innovation is
perceived as being better than the idea it supersedes.‖ In other words, relative advantage is
perceived when the innovation contributes to the betterment of the previous condition. These
improvements include higher profitability, better performance, enhanced status, return on
investment, and increased competitiveness. This study identified the respondents’ opinions
regarding the perceived relative advantage that could result from NCLIA implementation.
3.2.2 Compatibility
Rogers (2003, 224) defines compatibility as ―the degree to which an innovation is
perceived as consistent with the existing values, past experiences, and needs of potential
adopters.‖ According to this definition, when the potential adopter perceives the innovation is
familiar the innovation has greater rates of adoption. The study explored the degree of the
respondents’ familiarity with the NCLIA that would allow for the Act to be well received and
successfully implemented in their schools.
3.2.3 Complexity
Complexity is ―the degree to which an innovation is perceived as relatively difficult to
understand and use‖ (Rogers 2003, 242). When potential adopters do not understand the
innovation and deem it as difficult to implement or incorporate into their lives, the adoptability
rate decreases. This study explored the respondents’ perceptions regarding the complexity of
the implementation and integration of the NCLIA in their schools.
34
3.2.4 Trialability
Trialability is ―the degree to which an innovation may be experimented with on a limited
basis‖ (Rogers 2003, 243). According to this notion, greater trialability of an innovation leads to
higher probabilities for adopting it. This study explored the respondents’ perceived trialability of
the NCLIA.
3.2.5 Observability
Observability is ―the degree to which the results of an innovation are visible to others‖
(Rogers 2003, 244). Greater observability leads to a greater rate of adoption. Observability is
concerned with how the members of a group of study perceive that an innovation can be
implemented and how it might work. The study explored the respondents’ perceived
observability of the NCLIA in their schools.
3.3 Interview Protocol
After obtaining permission from The University of Texas at Arlington Institutional Review
Boards (IRB), the selected subjects of the sample were contacted by email, letter, or phone to
secure an interview. For the text used in the email, letter, and phone contacts, see Appendices
B, C, and D, respectively. The purpose of the study and the uses of the information they would
provide were explained to the subjects. The interviews were conducted in person. Before
beginning the interview, the participants were given a privacy and confidentiality agreement to
let them know the intended uses of the study and the fact that their personal information will be
protected. The participants also signed a consent form in which they agreed to participate in
the study for the intended purposes. The interviews were guided by a script, provided in
Appendix E. However, the questions remained flexible and open-ended..
35
3.4 Research Questions
As stated earlier, this study asked the following research questions:
1. What are the opinions held by school principals, school designers, and parents of
children in public schools in the North Texas region regarding the children’s experiences with
the outdoor environment?
2. What are the opinions held by school principals, school designers, and parents of
children in public schools in the North Texas region regarding the integration of the outdoor
environment in the educational experience of children?
3. What are the opinions held by school principals, school designers, and parents of
children in public schools in the North Texas region regarding the No Child Left Inside Act?
4. What are the perceived barriers to the adoption of the No Child Left Inside Act in
the public schools in the North Texas region?
5. What are the perceived benefits of the adoption of the No Child Left Inside Act in
the public schools in the North Texas region?
3.5 Research Sample
The sample included principals, school designers, and parents who are presidents of
the Parent Teacher Associations (PTA) of elementary schools located in the North Texas
region, as defined by North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG). The schools
must have been built in 2009 or later, which was after the approval of the No Child Left Inside
Act. The participants from each selected property were chosen because they represent the
primary decision makers or are major contributors to decisions made within their institutions.
3.6 Assumptions
This study assumed that the respondents have a vested interest in the educational
experiences of children. It was also assumed that the three sets of stakeholder respondents
can influence the decision making regarding the integration of the outdoor environment into
children’s educational experiences at their respective school. The study also assumed that the
36
respondents wanted to offer their responses to the study questions to benefit the children’s
educational experiences in their schools. Finally, it was assumed that the schools built after
2009 would contain some landscape design elements to conform to the NCLIA introduced in
2009.
3.7 Scope, Limitations, and Delimitations
This study is limited to a very specific geographic area in North Texas. The weather
and landscape considerations impact the experiences of the respondents with regard to the
integration of the outdoor environment into the children’s educational experiences. Therefore,
the limited geographic area of the study restricts the applicability and ability to generalize the
data to other parts of the state of Texas and the United States.
The participants represented eight of the 16 counties that comprise the North Texas
region as defined. This limitation was set because of the study’s time constraints and time
limitations of the participants. The different roles of the three sets of participants limited their
knowledge regarding some of the questions and about the NCLIA in general, which led to varied
responses. One important limitation of the study is that it did not include the perceptions of
superintendents, teachers, or students, who could have provided an expanded view of the topic.
Because of the years in which the schools were built, this research might not be
applicable to schools that were built or designed before 2009 when the NCLIA was introduced.
The study only focused on North Texas public schools. Therefore, the findings might not be
applicable to the experiences of private schools in the region. The study only gathered
information from stakeholders of elementary schools, which limits the applicability of the findings
to the experiences of middle and high schools.
3.8 Bias and Error
The participants in the study have similar interests in NCLIA implementation. However,
the fact that the respondents have different roles in the decision making does not allow for an
even set of responses from a common perspective. Principals, school designers, and parents
37
would likely have different perspectives regarding the implementation of the Act, stemming from
their unique stances and perspectives on the benefits of the Act and how it could benefit them in
their particular roles, as well as benefit the school and the children.
The qualitative research design leaves the process open for changes in the dynamics of
each interview. The partiality of the researcher toward the benefits of the NCLIA could also play
a role in creating bias. To ensure bias was not passed on to the participants, the interview
process must be guided but not influenced by the interviewer. The conversational and open-
ended style of the interviews resulted in multiple answers to the same questions, thus
challenging the interpretation of the results.
3.9 Summary
The study explored the perceived attributes of the No Child Left Inside Act of 2009—its
relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability. The sample for the
study included principals, school designers, and parents who are presidents of the PTA of
elementary schools that were built after 2009 and located in the North Texas region, as defined
by the North Central Texas Council of Governments and Vision North Texas. This research
used face-to-face interviews guided by a semi-structured questionnaire as the method for data
collection. Bias was constrained by allowing the participants to freely express their perceptions
without influencing their opinions.
38
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Introduction
The results of this study show that children’s experiences with the outdoor environment
in the participating schools were varied. But in general, inclusion of the outdoor environment in
the schools’ educational curriculums was limited. The interview results also show that the
opinions of school principals, school designers, and PTA presidents are favorable regarding
inclusion of the outdoor environment in children’s educational experiences. However, the
results raised concerns about the adoption of the No Child Left Inside Act of 2009. The majority
of the respondents had no knowledge of the Act. Nonetheless, all respondents have favorable
opinions about the benefits of environmental education and NCLIA adoption in their schools.
Regarding NCLIA implementation in their schools, one of the barriers that respondents pointed
to the most was the lack of time to diverge from a curriculum designed to satisfy the academic
requirements of the standardized test, Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS).
4.2 Analysis of the Interviews
After reviewing the interview transcription, the researcher sorted the participants’
answers under each specific interview question. Later, the researcher analyzed the responses
for recurring themes among the respondents’ opinions regarding adoption of the NCLIA. The
rest of this section provides summaries of the responses to each of the interview topics. At the
end of each discussion is a table that highlights recurring themes in the responses. A more
detailed version of these tables is provided in Appendix F. For the complete interview
transcripts, see Appendix G.
39
4.2.1 Experiences of Children with the Outdoor Environment in their Schools
An introductory question was asked about the current experiences of the children with
the outdoor environment in the participant schools. Describe the experiences that the children
have with the outdoor environment at this school.
In response to this question, the respondents’ replies varied. Three of the respondents,
R1, R4, and R7, replied that the students occasionally interact with the outdoor environment in
their schools. R1 said, ―Occasionally, not on a real often basis but occasionally, our fifth grade
science teacher will take the kids out and they will walk the creek bed or get down the creek.‖
R4 expressed that their outdoor experience is limited because the school is brand new.
However, ―The children have their recess time in those areas. And then, on nice days, the PE
teacher will do some of her lessons outdoors. That is primarily how we use our yard.‖ R7
spoke about how the location of the school determines the level of outdoor environment
involvement in the educational experiences. The respondent also pointed to the particular
experience of her children in their schools: ―My children went to two different elementary
schools, and one had a nurturing environment and the other was more like a prison yard with
this concrete courtyard and just really oppressive.‖
Three of the respondents, R2, R6, and R8, expressed that their schools allow for the
integration of the outdoor environment in the children’s educational experiences on a regular
basis. R6 pointed out that ―we are trying to give them (the children) an opportunity to
experience something in the landscape that is unique through the choice of plant materials or
earth forms or walkway layout.‖ R8 described the ample outdoor space at their school for
children to take advantage of: ―They have one area dedicated to physical playground
equipment, areas for free play. There are trees and benches. Therefore, they have a little bit of
everything. And they have one playground that is just for the little kids and one for the bigger
kids. I think they have a good experience, most of them.‖
40
Three of the respondents pointed out that the outdoor environment is only used for
recess and physical education (PE). R4 conveyed that the newness of the campus limits the
children’s exposure to the outdoor environment: ―This school is very limited because we are a
brand new campus, so the only actual outdoor experiences our kids have are actually on our
fields behind us and our playground areas. We are not doing any types of outdoor classrooms.
We are not doing any type of landscape classes or anything like that at this point.‖ R12 pointed
out that exposure to the outdoor environment and outdoor education is ―limited to recess and
exercise periods only.‖
Two of the respondents expressed that they use the outdoor environment extensively
and have an outdoor education program in place in their schools. R3 emphasized that ―We
certainly believe that outdoor learning is a high priority. Every class has two recess times, a
morning and an afternoon. We have an outdoor runners club twice a week that goes around
our outdoor area. We have the gardening club and the science club. We have a leadership
team that works in helping us to be interactive with the environment. We have classes outside.‖
R10 reiterated that ―they love the outdoor environment. The teachers use it extensively, and we
have incorporated it into our Fall Festival Carnival as well.‖
One of the respondents, R5, projected his views about how the school would
incorporate the outdoor environment because the school has not been built yet. R5 does think
that ―outdoor education will be a big part of it (the school)‖. R5 described an interesting fact
about the school design, which is that it has a ―courtyard and the interior faces outward.‖ He
believes all these elements will make it suitable for the integration of the outdoor environment
into the educational experiences of children when the school begins to operate.
41
Table 4.1 Interview Question 1 Recurring Themes Matrix
Describe the children’s experiences with the outdoor environment at this school.
Respondent Occasionally Only for PE and Recess Regularly
Extensively, and Have Outdoor Education
Programs
R1 X
R2
X
R3
X
R4 X
R5
X
R6 X
R7 X
R8
X
R9
X X
R10
X
R11
X
R12
X
4.2.2 How the Outdoor Environment Has Been Incorporated into the Educational Experience of North Texas Schools
The next question that was asked of respondents pertains to how the school has
incorporated the outdoor environment into the academic curriculum: Describe how the outdoor
environment has been incorporated into the educational experience at this school.
The responses pointed to the integration of the outdoor environment to some degree,
and mostly for PE and science education. R2 expressed satisfaction in the setting of the school
campus. She said, ―we have a lot of wildlife that seems to like to visit us every now and again.
Teachers take the classrooms out. We have grade levels working on soil now.‖ R3 described
their practice of ―mixing up classes‖ into different age levels and doing ―specials outside.‖ She
pointed out that ―everybody meets outside everyday at least once a day for something other
than recess. We do a lot of activities outside.‖ The respondent also conveyed that ―classes
love to be outside, so we encourage not so much that they are interacting with the environment
42
because they are just in the outside environment.‖ R5 expressed, ―a big part of their outdoor
experience is science based.‖ R8, R9, R10, and R11 responded that they use the outdoor
environment mostly for exercise and fitness purposes. R8 said, ―I know the gym teacher takes
them out and does specific activities outside a lot, especially when the weather is nice.‖ R8 also
said they have ―special events outside.‖ R2 expressed that they take the children out mostly for
―exercise and fitness.‖ R9 offered a similar response to the question, adding that it is used for
―the recess period.‖ R12 thinks children use the outdoor environment for ―play and exercise.‖
R7 stated that the experience of children with the outdoor ―varies dramatically‖
depending on the school. The respondent emphasized that ―there was no real outdoor
experience in my children’s elementary school, other than going outside for sports and field day,
playing games, and whatnot.‖ However, three respondents, R1, R5, and R10, expressed that
the children’s educational experience with the outdoor environment is more related to teaching
science. R1 responded, ―they (children) go out sometimes for their science classes. They go
outside looking for insects.‖ R1 also said the students use the creek by the school. R5 thinks
―a big part of (the outdoor experience of students) is science-based.‖ R10 also pointed to the
emphasis of science in outdoor education, with children doing ―some scientific experiments on
physical activity and looking for bugs.‖
Two of the respondents, R4 and R6, pointed out that the limitations to the inclusion of
the outdoor environment in the educational experiences of children in their schools were that
the campus was new and the TAKS test requirements. R4 described the children’s educational
experience with the outdoor environment as ―very little because we are just establishing the
cultures and climates of the campus.‖ R6 also expressed that the school being new is a
limitation when it comes to integrating the outdoor environment into the educational experiences
of children: ―the schools are quite new, and [the district] is struggling to just keep up with the
enrollment. R5 pointed out that the school is ―meeting some of their TAKS requirements‖ by
using the outdoor environment for science education.
43
Table 4.2 Interview Question 2 Recurring Themes Matrix
Describe how the outdoor environment has been incorporated into the educational experience at this school.
Respondent For Physical Education For Science Extensively
Limited, Due to New School or TAKS Test
R1 X X
R2 X X
R3 X X X
R4
X
R5
X
R6
X
R7 X
X
R8 X
R9 X
R10 X X
R11 X
R12 X
4.2.3 Knowledge About the NCLIA
The researcher inquired about the respondents’ knowledge regarding the NCLIA: What
do you know about the No Child Left Inside Act?
When asked this question, two of the respondents, R6 and R8, automatically gave
explanations about the No Child Left Behind Act. R7 knew about the NCLI Movement.
However, R7 expressed, ―about the act itself (I do not know) too much. I know that it provides
funding for initiatives that are supposed to help get children outside and whatnot.‖ Out of the 12
respondents, 11 did not know anything about the NCLIA.
The researcher provided a brief synopsis about the NCLIA and then asked a follow-up
question: After learning about the NCLIA, what is your opinion about it?
Seven of the respondents did not have further comments or opinions about the
information they had just learned. R1 pointed the researcher in the direction of another campus
44
with ―an outdoor area attached to it.‖ R3 responded, ―if it is a way to get funding, which is
something we desperately need, we definitely would like more information about that.‖ R7
reiterated, ―as far as the actual details and the ins and outs of the legislation, I am not that
familiar with it.‖ R9 emphasized that ―the only outside time I am aware of is for recess.‖
Table 4.3 Interview Question 3 Recurring Themes Matrix
What do you know about the No Child Left Inside Act?
Respondent No Knowledge Very Little Knowledge Knowledgeable
Extensive Knowledge
R1 X
R2 X
R3 X
R4
X
R5 X
R6 X
R7
X
R8 X
R9 X
R10 X
R11 X
R12 X
4.2.4 Incorporation of the NCLIA Goals into the Schools
Following the introduction of the NCLIA questions and explaining it to the respondents
who were not familiar with the Act, the researcher proceeded to ask the respondents how the
goals of the NCLIA had been incorporated into their schools: Have the goals of the NCLIA been
incorporated into this school?
In general, the responses were varied. Only four respondents answered the question
when asked: R1, R2, R9, and R11. R1 answered the question with a ―definitely maybe.‖ R1
expanded on the answer by commenting, ―We try to get them outside as much as we possibly
can. But I do not know that there is always a scientific purpose attached to it.‖ R2 explained
45
that ―as a district, we are now developing our own outdoor learning center, and it is located
[near the school].‖ Outdoor education is a goal for the school represented by R1, who said ―we
have committees working right now on some curricular ideas for using that property.‖
The implementation of the goals of the act can be perceived as something particular to
the preferences of specific teachers. R11 responded, ―whether the act is part of it, I feel that our
school, depending on the activity, they do incorporate it (outdoor education) as much as they
can. (Outdoor education) appeals to a certain teacher’s personality or teaching style (more)
than another.‖ Implementation of the goals of the act is not seen as formal by R11, who added
to his response: ―I have not been aware of this as being a formal policy that it has been
instituted at our school.‖ R4 pointed to the lack of legal obligation to implement the act. ―At this
point, there is nothing legally binding us to have external activities. Therefore, at this point it is
not a focus.‖ R4 added that the implementation of outdoor education in the classroom ―is in my
personal long-term vision, though.‖
Regarding implementation of the goals of the NCLIA in the school, R9 knows the goals
have been implemented. However, the respondent does not know if they have been
implemented specifically in the curriculum. The respondent knows there are ―multiple activities
that they have incorporated to go along with that notion (the NCLIA).‖
Table 4.4 Interview Question 4 Recurring Themes Matrix
Have the goals of the NCLIA been incorporated into this school?
Respondent No
Incorporation Very Little
Incorporation Incorporated Extensive
Incorporation
R1
X
R2
X
R3 X
R4 X
R5 X
R6 X
R7 X
46
Table 4.4 – Continued
Respondent No
Incorporation Very Little
Incorporation Incorporated Extensive
Incorporation
R8 X
R9 X
R10 X
R11 X
R12 X
4.2.5 Barriers to NCLIA Adoption by North Texas Public Schools
The researcher asked the respondents their opinions regarding barriers to the
implementation to the NCLIA in public schools in general: What do you foresee as to the
barriers to the adoption of the NCLIA by public schools in North Texas?
The responses for this question varied. A recurring theme that was pointed out as a
barrier to NCLIA implementation was the emphasis of the schools in preparing students for the
TAKS. R1 responded, ―we are doing all for TAKS, so the lives of the teachers revolve around
TAKS.‖ The emphasis on standardized tests was also pointed out by R2, who replied, ―finding
the right place for it within the existing curriculum because, obviously, we have so many Texas
requirements already embedded.‖ R5 reinforced this answer by replying, ―a lot of focus is put
on passing certain tests and meeting certain standards.‖ The answer expressed a concern by
the responder, who added, ―if educators felt like by complying with some of these new
standards we are going to pull time away from what they are already struggling to accomplish.‖
R8 shares the same opinion about TAKS being a barrier to NCLIA implementation: ―I think the
biggest barrier is right now the laws are set up to do testing, the TAKS test. Schools, not that
they want to, but because they are mandated to, teach toward getting those tests and not
always teach toward the arts and the physical activities.‖ R9 produced a similar answer: ―the
TAKS test is going to be your biggest barrier because (teachers) are jammed with teaching the
TAKS, which I do not necessarily agree with.‖ R10 also sees TAKS as a barrier to NCLIA
47
implementation in the schools: ―I see the biggest barrier is the TAKS test, and because
apparently our country and state feel like it is more important to have children pass a test that is
specifically taught to, as opposed to giving them the essentials that they need outside: from a
little break to reset their minds, getting some vitamin D outside in the sunshine, and blowing off
some steam and some energy out playing.‖
Responses included the element of tradition as a barrier to NCLIA implementation in
schools. R1 responded, ―probably one of the biggest obstacles with a lot of people is just
tradition, the fact that we have not done it that way before.‖ R7 provided a similar answer by
saying, ―The number one barrier to the adoption of the NCLIA is probably just the inertia of the
status quo. We have done things like this for so long, and you have such ingrained attitudes
and policies from superintendents all the way down through the teaching ranks.‖
Safety and the heat were two of the factors of concern to the respondents related to
barriers for NCLIA implementation in North Texas public schools. R3 responded, ―There are
two things that are barriers that I would see. One is heat. The other one is safety.‖ R12 offered
a similar response: ―I think the barriers might be safety. Both parents and school staff view
everything from a safety point of view.‖
Politics was another issue that surfaced as a barrier to NCLIA implementation. R6 and
R4 replied simply, ―Politics.‖ However, R4 added, ―if an educator can be shown that this (the
Act) will increase student achievement and it will increase student learning, I think educators
should go for it.‖
One of the respondents suggested barriers as to the number of hours in the school day
and lack of outdoor space at the school. R11 expressed the opinion that ―there are not enough
hours in the school day to get everything in that they have to get in.‖ The fact that the school
does not have enough property surrounding it ―beside parking‖ is also perceived as an obstacle.
48
Table 4.5 Interview Question 5 Recurring Themes Matrix
What do you foresee as barriers to adoption of the NCLIA by North Texas public schools?
Respondent Tradition TAKS
Testing Outdoor Space Weather Safety
Too Few Hours Politics
R1 X X
R2
X
R3
X X
R4
X
R5
X
R6
X X
R7 X
R8
X
R9
X
R10
X
R11
X
R12
X X
4.2.6 Opportunities for NCLIA Adoption by North Texas Public Schools
The last question had to do with the respondents’ opinions about the future of the
NCLIA in their schools: What do you foresee as to the opportunities to the adoption of the
NCLIA by public schools in North Texas?
The majority of the respondents favor the adoption of the NCLIA in schools and foresee
benefits to the Act’s adoption. Nine out of the 12 respondents expressed that they see
opportunities for adoption of the Act. R1 and R6, however, expressed that full disclosure of the
benefits of the Act would ease its adoption. R1 said that the Act should not be mandated,
saying, ―if you do it by edict, it does not go well.‖ The respondent added that ―if they are going
to make this thing work, it has to be sold as the benefits.‖ R6 provided a similar response: ―I
think that they just need to make sure that everybody is clear on what those requirements are.‖
R6 also added that ―if the Act is adopted, what are the pros and cons? Everybody should know
going in what are their options.‖ The respondent also stressed the importance of assessing the
49
details about the Act’s implementation with the people who put it into practice in terms of
―benefit, the costs in time, money, and effort.‖
In general, the respondents embraced the adoption of the Act for various reasons. R2
mentioned that it is a ―fabulous idea‖, adding that ―it is very important that children have a real
good appreciation of nature, of the environment. I see it as a real plus if that could become part
of what we do on a regular basis.‖ R3 expressed that they are a ―brain-based school and that
oxygen and exercise really help children think and that being in a different environment and
getting children to move, interact, and talk with things is a much better way to learn.‖ R4
responded that implementation of the Act ―is going to increase student learning and gives
children experiences that they may not typically have at home or anywhere else.‖ R8 views the
implementation of the NCLIA as an opportunity to strengthen education because ―outdoor
education is going to flow into all the subjects.‖ R8 perceives benefits beyond the academic
component of the Act’s implementation by helping the children ―have more energy, be more
alert in class, and just be active, not just at the school, but in their community. The more they
are active and feel good about themselves, the more they are going to do other things.‖
A common response expressed by R9 and R12 was about getting the children away
from electronics. R9 responded, ―it is an opportunity to get children off of the computers, off of
the video games for a little while, off of the TV for a little while, if they are doing it at home.‖ R12
offered a similar response as an opportunity to ―getting the children outside, unplugging them
from the electronics and the structures of the school system.‖
Two of the respondents, R5 and R9, view the implementation of the NCLIA as an
opportunity to enhance the science curriculum in the schools. R5 said, ―there are a lot of
opportunities outside of a school on a site to learn about, such as physical activities and
science-related fields.‖ R9 believes the Act would provide ―an opportunity to teach science in a
hands-on way.‖
50
Increasing the exercise levels to which students are exposed also came up as an
opportunity after NCLIA implementation. R3 expressed, ―exercise really helps children think‖,
while R3 sees ―a lot of opportunities‖, among them, for ―physical activity.‖ Incorporating different
learning styles into the educational experience of children also came up as an opportunity
related to NCLIA implementation. R3 responded that ―to move, interact, and talk with things is a
much better way to learn‖. R9 expressed there is an opportunity to ―reinforce some learning
styles that are not just listening, but also touching and seeing.‖
Finally, an opportunity that emerged from the data is tackling the obesity problem. R10
responded: ―I think just the growing obesity rate of our society is a sign. I am not sure how well
the TAKS test is actually helping produce children that are smarter and more prepared for
college and life in general. So hopefully, they will take that into consideration and give them
(children) a couple breaks throughout the day to play and be children.‖ R11 pointed out that
―most people recognize obesity as a problem‖ and that attempting to solve the obesity issue is
one angle that would help to ―get this (the Act) pushed through schools.‖
Table 4.6 Interview Question 6 Recurring Themes Matrix
What do you foresee as opportunities from adoption of NCLIA in North Texas public schools?
Respondent Tackle Obesity
Enhance Student Learning
Gain Appreciation
for Environment
Increase Exercise
Incorporate Different Learning
Styles
Unplug Children
from Electronics
NCLIA Awareness
R1
X
R2
X
R3
X X X X
R4
X
R5
X
X
R6
X
R7
R8
X X X
R9
X
X X
R10 X
R11 X
R12
X X
51
4.3 Discussion
The study revealed important information regarding the integration of the outdoor
environment into the educational experiences of children and NCLIA implementation in North
Texas elementary schools. The study answered five fundamental questions about the opinions
of principals, school designers, and parents regarding the experiences of children with the
outdoor environment in their schools, integration of the outdoor environment into the
educational experiences of children, the NCLIA, and the possible barriers and opportunities of
NCLIA adoption in North Texas schools. A discussion of these questions follows.
4.3.1 Stakeholder Opinions Regarding Children’s Experiences with the Outdoor Environment
As related by the respondents, the study revealed that children’s experiences with the
outdoor environment are not uniform. Each respondent offered a description of experiences
that were significantly different from those of the other respondents. In general, the ourtdoor
experiences of children are described to be limited to physical education, play, and science.
The differences in the school landscapes also came out as a factor that influences the
experience of children with the outdoor environment. No descriptions were offered regarding
the pros or cons of the current experience of children with the outdoor environment.
4.3.2 Integration of the Outdoor Environment into Children’s Educational Experiences
The study revealed that integration of the outdoor environment into the educational
experiences of children is not formal. The descriptions offered by the respondents did not
reveal that the outdoor environment has been integrated into the design of the academic
curriculum, nor did it reveal that integration of the outdoor environment into children’s
educational experiences is periodic or systematic. There are strong perceptions that the
outdoor environment is suitable only for informal school activities, such as play and recess.
4.3.3 Knowledge About the NCLIA
The study revealed the important fact that 11 of the 12 respondents did not have any
knowledge abut the NCLIA. Three of the respondents assumed the NCLIA is the NCLBA. Two
52
of the respondents offered extensive explanations about the NCLBA when asked about the
NCLIA. Only one of the respondents was familiar with the NCLIA movement. However, he was
not well informed about the Act itself. In general, the NCLIA is unknown to school principals,
school designers, and parents.
4.3.4 Perceived Barriers to NCLIA Adoption in Schools
The study revealed a consistent finding among the respondents regarding the
perceived barriers to NCLIA implementation. As perceived by the respondents, the biggest
barrier is the emphasis on teaching the subjects required to pass the TAKS test. Conformity to
old notions of teaching and learning also came up as an important barrier to implementation of
the NCLIA in schools. Politics seems to be a concern among respondents—how the act will be
presented and mandated by the top levels or imposed as part of a political agenda. In general,
the lack of time to implement it due to TAKS and the workload of teachers is perceived as the
principal barrier to NCLIA adoption in schools.
4.3.5 Perceived Opportunities for NCLIA Adoption in Schools
The perception about NCLIA adoption in North Texas public schools revolves around
the integration of the outdoor environment for science education. Opinions of the respondents
about NCLIA implementation are positive. Two respondents expressed concern regarding how
the NCLIA should be introduced to the school stakeholders to facilitate the Act’s adoption. In
general, the respondents find that the Act will help get children away from electronics, increase
activity levels, enhance science learning, and contribute to solving the obesity problem.
4.3.6 Perceptions of Relative Advantage Regarding the NCLIA
Nine respondents expressed positive opinions about NCLIA adoption in North Texas
public schools, as presented in the interviews. Responses ranged from the importance of
children ―having a real appreciation of nature‖ to increasing student learning capabilities,
enhancing science learning, increasing exercise, incorporating different learning styles, getting
53
children away from electronics, and tackling obesity. One of the responses offered ―just getting
the children outside‖ as an advantage.
4.3.7 Perceptions of Compatibility Regarding the NCLIA
All of the respondents found compatibility issues regarding NCLIA adoption in North
Texas public schools. The schools’ emphasis on preparation for the TAKS test was the main
compatibility issue that stemmed from the data. ―Finding the right place for the NCLIA within the
existing curriculum‖ because of standardized tests was expressed by six of the respondents.
Tradition, ―the fact that we have not done it that way before‖, was another compatibility issue
expressed by two respondents. Safety issues also came up during the interviews with two of
the participants. ―From the schools’ perspective, there might be a barrier to adopting those
kinds of things from a safety standpoint.‖
4.3.8 Perceptions of Complexity Regarding NCLIA Adoption
The complexity of NCLIA adoption came in the form of finding the time within the
schools to implement the Act. Another complexity was two schools being new and lacking the
infrastructure to implement a new program when they are trying to increment enrollments.
―Establishing new cultures and climates in a new campus‖ and ―struggling to keep up with
enrollments‖ were seen as issues of complexity. Also, the lack of outdoor space - ―not enough
space surrounding the school beside parking‖ - could make implementation of the Act difficult in
one of the schools.
4.3.9 Perceptions of Trialability Regarding the NCLIA
Interview results revealed that the NCLIA has not been incorporated in the education
system of the schools. None of the respondents offered a categorical answer regarding formal
NCLIA incorporation in their schools.
4.3.10 Perceptions of Observability of the NCLIA
No perceptions of observability were obtained from the interviews.
54
4.4 Summary of Findings
Only three of the respondents expressed that children use the outdoor environment
extensively (the outdoor environment is an extensive part of the education experience of the
children). Two respondents expressed that their schools regularly use the outdoor environment
in teaching. Seven respondents said their school uses the outdoor environment occasionally
and/or only for PE and recess.
Six respondents indicated that the outdoor environment is only used for PE and play,
versus three other respondents who pointed out that the outdoor environment is used mostly for
science. Three respondents expressed their schools use the outdoor environment regularly or
occasionally. Three of the respondents said the integration of the outdoor environment into the
educational experiences is limited. Eight respondents conveyed that outdoor education is
incorporated into their education in their PE or science curriculum.
When asked about their knowledge about the NCLIA, two respondents assumed the
researcher inquired about their knowledge regarding the NCLBA. Only one respondent had
prior knowledge about the NCLI Movement. However, he did not have much knowledge about
the Act. Eleven of the respondents did not know anything about the NCLIA.
The question about whether the goals of the NCLIA had been incorporated into their
schools did not lead to responses from seven of the respondents. The rest of the respondents
expressed that the NCLIA had been incorporated into the curriculum somewhat. However, the
respondents who replied to the question pointed out that the Act had not been formally adopted
by their schools.
When asked about barriers to NCLIA adoption in North Texas schools, six respondents
pointed to the TAKS as the major barrier. The children’s safety in the outdoor environment
came up with two of the respondents as a barrier to adoption of the Act. Politics and tradition—
how the Act will be ―sold‖ to the teachers and administrators and resistance to change—were
identified by four respondents as barriers to the adoption of the NCLIA.
55
Nine of the respondents expressed positive opinions in general about implementing the
Act in their schools. The inclusion of outdoor education and its effect on increasing children’s
learning was a recurring theme in three of the responses. Four respondents expressed
increasing exercise and tackling the obesity problem as positive opinions regarding NCLIA
adoption. Two of the respondents expressed positive opinions about the incorporation of
different learning styles as an opportunity of NCLIA adoption. Two respondents reinforced that
to implement the Act, the executors of the Act need to be informed about the benefits of the
NCLIA.
56
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS
5.1 Introduction
The No Child Left Inside Act has not been enacted into law by the United States
Legislature. Therefore, the Act has not been mandated for implementation in North Texas
schools. The general perception of the importance of the outdoor environment in children’s
educational experience is prevalent in the study. Nonetheless, the information about the NCLIA
has not permeated the area school systems, which is an obstacle for the implementation and
adoption of the Act.
The integration of the outdoor environment in North Texas schools is not uniform
throughout the school districts. Schools integrate the outdoor environment in their educational
activities according to the views of the leadership of the school about how the outdoor
environment fits into the classroom curriculum. Teachers seem to have autonomy and the final
authority about how and when to integrate the outdoor environment into the children’s
educational experiences.
It is not clear if the e study respondents believe the outdoor environment is a proper
environment for the application of concepts and learning lessons beyond science and PE, as
most of them expressed an inclination and perception that the integration of the outdoor
environment has the purpose of increasing children’s exercise levels and allowing them hands-
on experience when learning science. The experiences of children in the outdoor environment
are currently highly concentrated in the areas of physical education and science. However,
their exposure to the outdoor environment is not consistent.
In general, the schools of the study have not purposefully and systematically
implemented an education curriculum that focuses on the integration of the outdoor
57
environment into the children’s educational experiences. Therefore, there is a lot of
improvisation with the outdoor environment when the experience is not circumscribed to
physical or science education and recess. Nonetheless, the potential exists in almost every
school campus to take advantage of the outdoor environment, because of the availability of
open space and green areas that belong to or are near the school.
Incorporation of the outdoor environment into children’s educational experience in North
Texas public schools is present to some degree. However, the outdoor environment has not
been planned to be part of the academic curriculum on a regular basis. The study showed that
schools might or might not take full advantage of the outdoor environment, although they are
aware of it and attempt to expose the children to it according to how it fits into their academic
curriculums.
One of the most important findings of the study is that the NCLIA is a topic unknown
among the schools in the study. The Act has not been made known to school principals and
parents. The name resonates with the No Child Left Behind Act, with which all participants are
familiar. The similarity between the names of the Acts presents confusion and ambiguity in
understanding what the NCLIA entails and so delays comprehension of the concept behind the
Act. The similar names might also prompt stakeholders in schools to make unfavorable
associations between the NCLIA and the NCLBA, especially among those who have negative
perceptions and opinions about the latter. To dissipate the confusion between the two Acts, a
bigger effort to promote the NCLIA is required.
There is also a lack of knowledge about the NCLI Movement that prompted the NCLIA.
School stakeholders will have to be made aware of how the Act emerged and developed so
they can understand the purpose behind it. The lack of knowledge about the Act makes it hard
for the school principals and parents to embrace the notion of it, because they do not fully
understand it. If they perceive that this Act will increase their workload, the state requirements,
58
and bureaucracy, they might have a negative opinion about the Act prior to its incorporation in
the schools, which will increase the resistance to its implementation and adoption.
Comprehensive education needs to be done to inform school principals, school
designers, and parents about the NCLIA prior to its introduction and before it is mandated by
the state. There was a prevalent feeling that mandates and decrees could potentially increase
resistance to change in the participant schools. It is important that the benefits of the Act are
presented, documented, and supported by quantitative and qualitative data, to facilitate its
introduction and implementation among school stakeholders.
The lack of knowledge about the NCLIA makes it hard for schools to incorporate its
goals into the academic curriculum. The goals of the NCLIA have not been communicated, and
therefore, have not been incorporated into North Texas schools. The goals of the NCLIA might
have been in place or present in some of the activities involving the outdoor environment and
the school curriculums. Because there is no direct knowledge about the Act, some schools
have incorporated the goals implicitly.
The NCLIA is foreseen to have some resistance from principals, teachers, and parents.
The number one barrier to NCLIA implementation in North Texas schools is the TAKS test.
Schools devote time and resources to make sure their students are prepared for the
standardized test. Great importance is placed on the preparation for and passing of the TAKS.
Teachers must comply with regulatory guidelines that mandate they satisfy the passing goals
for the test. Therefore, principals and teachers foresee that time will be a limitation for NCLIA
implementation in the academic curriculum.
The emphasis on TAKS has forced schools to eliminate or limit the academic
curriculum beyond the subjects required to pass the test. Subjects like arts, music, and even
PE have been eliminated or shortened to devote more time to TAKS preparation. Requiring
schools to increase the time children interact with the outdoor environment seems
counterproductive to some teachers and principals. The issue of time—that there are not
59
enough hours in the day for education in the schools—is linked to the issue of the TAKS.
However, strengthening the information about how the outdoor environment fits into all subjects
can mitigate concerns regarding time constraints when the NCLIA is implemented in the
schools.
The NCLIA will likely face some resistance from principals, teachers, and parents. The
safety concerns are real, and schools face challenges to dissipate the concerns about the
children’s safety while they are engaged in the outdoor environment as part of their learning
experience. The challenges regarding safety can make principals and teachers apprehensive
about adopting the Act.
In general, the study made evident the benefits of the NCLIA as perceived by school
principals, school designers, and parents. The opinions about the implementation and adoption
of the NCLIA in the schools are positive. School principals and parents welcome the idea of
getting their children more active and giving them opportunity to interact with the outdoor
environment on a regular basis. The opinions identified in the study regarding the benefits of
NCLIA implementation are mostly related to increasing activity levels and being proactive to
help mitigate the obesity problem among children and adolescents.
Enhancing learning by using multiple learning styles, especially science learning, came
up as a recurring theme. The study revealed the general opinion that the outdoor environment
only fits into certain subjects and only under certain criteria, usually the criteria of the decision
maker in the classroom. An important finding of the study is that information about the NCLIA
needs to be disseminated, explained, and ―sold‖ to the stakeholders in the school systems, as
opposed to mandated as a new law, with which they must comply to facilitate its implementation
and adoption.
5.2 Relevance to the Profession of Landscape Architecture
The responsibility of the profession of landscape architecture has been the dedication
to facilitate the safety, health, and welfare of our communities and to provide quality design that
60
is ecologically sensitive to our natural environments. Implementation of the NCLIA would
ensure funding to school districts for the design of schoolyards that take advantage of the
outdoor environment for educational purposes and ensure that all children have an opportunity
to experience the natural outdoor environment on a daily basis. Landscape architecture could
assume a lead role in educating both school systems and the public about Nature Deficit
Disorder (NDD), benefits of nature-based educational activities, the NCLI Act, design
modifications in existing campuses, and design strategies for future campuses.
Landscape architects could assist in education through presentations at schools and
conferences. Disseminating ideas for design could take the form of design guideline
publications, books, or pilot projects that demonstrate the ideas and principles. The design
guidelines could cover a wide range of topics, such as creative partnerships between schools
and park departments or schools and nature non-profits and creative site selection of new
school campuses.
5.3 Suggestions for Further Research
This study serves as a foundation for further studies about integration of the outdoor
environment into the academic curriculums and educational experiences of children in North
Texas public schools. The following research is suggested for future studies:
• A quantitative study about the readiness of the stakeholders in public school
systems (superintendents, principals, teachers, and parents) to implement and adopt the NCLIA
in their schools.
• An assessment of the effectiveness of NCLIA implementation in North Texas public
schools after the Act has been mandated.
• A study that compares the academic success indexes of children who study in
public schools in which the Act has not been implemented to the indexes of children in schools
where the Act has been implemented.
61
• A study of how the landscape architecture and design of the outdoor environment in
the public schools has impacted the academic, emotional, and social performance of the
children by age levels.
• A study to gauge the difference in educational benefits realized in truly natural
outdoor environments versus a man-made environment designed to emulate the most beneficial
attributes of natural outdoor environments.
62
APPENDIX A
NO CHILD LEFT INSIDE COALITION AND THE NO CHILD LEFT INSIDE ACT OF 2009
63
About the No Child Left Inside Coalition
The No Child Left Inside® Coalition is composed of environmental, educational, and
public health organizations, businesses, civic organizations and other public enterprises, all
dedicated to ensuring a comprehensive education for all.
Background: The No Child Left Inside Coalition is a national coalition of over 1800
business, health, youth, faith, recreational, environmental, and educational groups representing
over 50 million Americans. The Coalition was formed in 2007 to alert Congress and the public
to the need for our schools to devote more resources and attention to environmental education.
Goal: The Coalition is working to support legislation sponsored by Rep. John Sarbanes
of Maryland and Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island to ensure that every student achieves basic
environmental literacy. The No Child Left Inside Act would amend the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (No Child Left Behind) to include environmental education for the first
time. The legislation would provide new funding for environmental education, particularly to
develop rigorous standards, train teachers and to develop state environmental literacy plans. It
also proposes giving states that develop such environmental literacy plans access to additional
funds.
As members of the Coalition, groups and organizations:
• Express support for the Coalition’s efforts and will be listed as a member
organization on the Coalition’s website and on letters to Congress, if appropriate.
• Will be kept informed by email as to the status of the NCLI Act and the Coalition’s
efforts.
• Will be asked to contact the media and write to members of Congress in support of
the NCLI Act.
• Will be asked to coordinate all advocacy related to the NCLI Act with the Coalition.
64
About the No Child Left Inside Act
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act is also known as No Child Left Behind,
which in the past few years has fundamentally changed the way that education is delivered in
this country. It has defined the core content that all students in the United States must learn to
be considered proficient at each grade level. As of 2007, this includes content standards in
reading, math, and science. In many school districts, this has translated into teaching only those
subjects and standards that are assessed.
If Congress adopts the NCLI proposals, a substantially strengthened Elementary and
Secondary Education Act will include:
• Funding to train teachers to deliver high quality Environmental Education and utilize
the local environment as an extension of the classroom.
• Incentives for states to develop State Environmental Literacy Plans to insure that
every student is prepared to understand the environmental challenges of the future.
• Encouragement for teachers, administrators, and school systems to make time and
resources available for environmental education for all students.
• Environmental Education will be integrated across core subject areas.
Source: National NCLI Coalition Website (http://www.cbf.org/Page.aspx?pid=948)
House Bill 2054 and Senate Bill 866 Summary
No Child Left Inside Act of 2009 –
Amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to require states, as a
prerequisite to receiving implementation grants, to develop environmental literacy plans,
approved by the Secretary of Education, for pre-kindergarten through grade 12 that include
environmental education standards and teacher training.
Directs the Secretary to award Environmental Education Professional Development
Grants to states and, through them, competitive subgrants to partnerships that include an LEA
and, permissibly, institutions of higher education (IHE), other educational entities, or federal,
65
state, regional, or local natural resource or environmental agencies, for activities involving,
among other things, teacher training and the development of more rigorous environmental
education curricula that advance the teaching of interdisciplinary courses.
Authorizes the Secretary to award competitive matching grants to partnerships that
include an LEA and, permissibly, IHEs, other educational entities, federal, state, regional, or
local natural resource or environmental agencies, or park and recreation departments, for
activities to improve and support environmental education that include: (1) advancing content
and achievement standards; (2) developing or disseminating innovations or model programs;
and (3) research.
Current Senate Actions
4/22/2009: Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S4581)
4/22/2009: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions. (text of measure as introduced: CR S4581-4584)
Current House Actions
4/22/2009: Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H4667)
4/22/2009: Referred to the House Committee on Education and Labor.
6/4/2009: Referred to the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and
Secondary Education.
Source: The Library of Congress THOMAS (www.THOMAS.gov)
66
APPENDIX B
EMAIL INTERVIEW REQUEST
67
Dear Mr./Mrs. John Doe, Title: Date xx, 2010
School Name Elementary
Hello my name is Shawn Bookout, and I am a graduate student at The University of
Texas at Arlington. I am in the process of completing my Master’s of Landscape Architecture
degree. My thesis topic is ―Elementary Schoolyard Landscapes as Outdoor Learning:
Perceptions of North Texas Stakeholders‖.
Last week I sent you a request for your participation in an interview for my research
project. This interview concerns the examination of schoolyard landscapes that foster greater
learning opportunities for elementary school children and the amount of contact that children
have with these landscapes. This study is an important one that will help landscape architects
in their efforts in the future by providing research information to identify design elements needed
for elementary schoolyard landscapes to be designed or redesigned as an interactive setting for
learning.
I am emailing to see if I could schedule an appointment with you. The interview will
take approximately 30 minutes of your time.
Are you available to be interviewed at one of the following dates and times:
October xx, 2010 at xx:00 P.M.
October xx, 2010 at xx:00 P.M.
Thank you for your time and consideration. It is only through the generous support of
people like you that our research can be successful. Feel free to call or email me if you have
any questions.
Ms. Shawn M. Bookout; Graduate Student
Program in Landscape Architecture
The University of Texas at Arlington
1407 Grape Arbor Ct.
Keller, Texas 76262
Phone: (817) 991-8134
Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]
68
APPENDIX C
LETTER FOR INTERVIEW REQUEST
69
Mr./Mrs. John Doe, Title October xx, 2010
School Name Elementary
xxxx Somewhere Dr.
Hometown, Tx 76000
Dear Mr/Mrs. John Doe:
Hello my name is Shawn Bookout and I am a graduate student at The University of
Texas at Arlington. I am in the process of completing my Master’s of Landscape Architecture
Degree. My thesis topic is ―Elementary Schoolyard Landscapes as Outdoor Learning
Environments: Perceptions of North Texas Stakeholders‖.
In a few days I will be contacting you to request your participation in an interview for my
research project. This interview concerns the examination of schoolyard landscapes that foster
greater learning opportunities for elementary school children and the amount of contact that
children have with these landscapes. This study is an important one that will help landscape
architects in their efforts in the future by providing research information to identify design
elements needed for elementary schoolyard landscapes to be designed or redesigned as an
interactive setting for learning. I am writing in advance because we have found many people
like to know ahead of time that their participation is being requested. The interview will take
approximately 30 minutes of your time.
Thank you for your time and consideration. It is only through the generous support of
people like you that our research can be successful. Feel free to call or email me if you have
any questions.
Ms. Shawn M. Bookout; Graduate Student
Program in Landscape Architecture
The University of Texas at Arlington
1407 Grape Arbor Ct.
Keller, Texas 76262
Phone: (817) 991-8134
Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]
70
APPENDIX D
SCRIPT FOR INITIAL CALL TO SCHEDULE INTERVIEW
71
Hello Mr. / Ms. ______________
My name is Shawn Bookout. I am a student in the graduate program in landscape
architecture at The University of Texas at Arlington. I am working on my master’s thesis for my
Master of Landscape Architecture degree. I am calling to request your participation in an
interview for an important research project.
I would like to schedule an interview with you. It will only take approximately 30
minutes of your time. This interview concerns the examination of schoolyard landscapes that
foster greater learning opportunities for elementary school children and the amount of contact
that children have with these landscapes. This study will be important in providing research
information to identify design elements needed for elementary schoolyard landscapes to be
designed or redesigned as an interactive setting for learning.
When would be a good time for me to sit down with you and discuss this subject?
Thank you for your time and I look forward to meeting with you on (Date and Time).
72
APPENDIX E
INTERVIEW INTRODUCTION AND LIST OF QUESTIONS
73
Thank you in advance for making time for this interview. This interview will focus on
perceptions regarding the elementary schoolyard designs in the region and opinions about the
integration of the No Child Left Inside Act in public schools in North Texas. Please give your
most candid responses to the questions. Your information will not be directly linked to your
name or position and will have no effect on your relationship with the school.
(1) Describe the experiences that the children have with the outdoor environment at this
school.
(2) Describe how the outdoor environment has been incorporated into the educational
experience at this school.
(3) What do you know about the No Child Left Inside Act?
(4) Have the goals of the No Child Left Inside Act been incorporated into this school?
(5) What do you foresee as to the barriers to the adoption of the No Child Left Inside
Act by public schools in North Texas?
(6) What do you foresee as to the opportunities to the adoption of the No Child Left
Inside Act by public schools in North Texas?
Thank you for your time today!
74
APPENDIX F
RECURRING THEMES IN INTERVIEW RESPONSES
75
Appendix F presents excerpts from the responses to each interview question, in tabular
format by respondent number (Rn), and summarizes the recurring themes in the answers to
each question.
76
Table F.1 Recurring Themes in Responses to Interview Question 1
Question: Describe the experiences that the children have with the outdoor environment at this school.
No. Response Recurring Themes
R1 Occasionally, not on a real often basis but occasionally, our fifth grade science teacher will take the kids out and they will walk the creek bed or get down the creek.
• Occasionally (R1, R4, R7)
• Regularly (R3, R6, R8)
• Only for PE and recess (R2, R4, R12)
• Use the outdoor environment extensively and have outdoor education programs (R2, R10)
R2 We have two playground areas and a pretty large field. The children have their recess time in those areas. And then, on nice days, the PE teacher will do some of her lessons outdoors. That is primarily how we use our yard.
R3 Every class has two recess times, a morning and an afternoon. We have an outdoor runners club twice a week that goes around our outdoor area. We have the gardening club and the science club. We have a leadership team that works in helping us to be interactive with the environment. We have classes outside. We certainly believe that outdoor learning is a high priority.
R4 This school is very limited because we are a brand new campus, so the only actual outdoor experiences our kids have are actually on our fields behind us and our playground areas. We are not doing any types of outdoor classrooms. We are not doing any type of landscape classes or anything like that at this point.
R5 Well, I think outdoor education will be a big part of it. We have a courtyard, in particular, and the interior spaces face outward.
R6 We are trying to give them an opportunity to experience something in the landscape that is unique through the choice of plant materials or earth forms or walkway layout.
R7 It varies dramatically, depending on the environment in which the elementary school is located. My children went to two different elementary schools, and one had a nurturing environment and the other was more like a prison yard with this concrete courtyard and just really oppressive.
R8 They [children] have a lot of space. They have one area dedicated to physical playground equipment, areas for free play. There are trees and benches. Therefore, they have a little bit of everything. And they have one playground that is just for the little kids and one for the bigger kids. I think they have a good experience, most of them.
R9 I think all they do here is PE indoors, and then I think they have their recess time outside on the playground, if I am not mistaken. And I am not sure how long that lasts.
77
Table F.1 – Continued
Question: Describe the experiences that the children have with the outdoor environment at this school.
No. Response Recurring Themes
R10 They love the outdoor environment. The teachers use it extensively, and we have incorporated it into our Fall Festival Carnival as well.
R11 Every day, weather permitting, the children go out for most of their PE period, and they have a recess period which they spend outdoors everyday if the weather is good as well. Lately, they have been doing units in which they are learning about different sports, so they have been golfing outside or bowling outside on the blacktop.
R12 I think outdoor education is limited to recess and exercise periods only.
Table F.2 Recurring Themes in Responses to Interview Question 2
Question: Describe how the outdoor environment has been incorporated into the educational experience at this school.
No. Response Recurring Themes
R1 They use the natural environment to some degree. Children would go out sometimes for their science classes, and mainly the fifth grade; third and fourth graders will go out sometimes. They go outside looking for insects—ladybugs and different things they see in the grass. They use the creek. And the children exercise a lot, but only when they go out for exercise.
• PE and Play (R7, R8, R9, R10, R11, R12)
• Mostly for science (R1, R5, R10)
• Have implemented outdoor education to some degree for PE or science ( R2, R3, R5, R8, R9, R11, R12)
• Regularly (R1, R2, R3)
• Limited due to the school being new or TAKS (R4, R5, R6)
R2 We have a lot of wildlife that seems to like to visit us every now and again. Teachers will take classrooms out. We have grade levels working on soil right now.
R3 We regularly mix up [classes] for specials outside. Everybody meets outside at least once a day for something other than recess. We do a lot of activities outside. Classes love being outside so we encourage not so much that they are interacting with the environment because they are just in the outside environment.
R4 Very little, because we are just establishing the cultures and climates of this campus.
R5 I think a big part of it is science based.
R6 The schools are all quite new, and [this] ISD is struggling just to keep up with enrollment.
78
Table F.2 – Continued
Question: Describe how the outdoor environment has been incorporated into the educational experience at this school.
No. Response Recurring Themes
R7 I think it varies dramatically. There was no real outdoor experience in my children’s elementary school, other than going outside for sports and field day, playing games, and whatnot.
R8 I know that the gym teacher takes them out and does specific activities outside a lot, especially if the weather is nice, and then she is bringing them out a lot. And I know they have special events outside. So any time there is an event in which they can get the kids out and active, they bring them out.
R9 Probably just more for exercise and fitness.
R10 The school is meeting some of their TAKS requirements and with some scientific experiments on physical activity and looking for bugs for their science experiments. And they have little things that they have to do for PE out there.
R11 Mostly, it is just used for the physical education or the recess period.
R12 I think they just use it for play and exercise.
79
Table F.3 Recurring Themes in Responses to Interview Question 3
Question: What do you know about the No Child Left Inside Act?
No. Response Recurring Themes
R1 Probably nothing. Would you explain it to me? • Two respondents (R6 and R8) talked about the NCLBA.
• One respondent (R7) knew about the NCLI Movement, not the Act.
• Eleven respondents did not know anything about the Act.
R2 No Child Left Behind? Inside? Obviously, I do not know anything about that.
R3 I do not know anything about that Act.
R4 I have heard about it. I have read about it. Do not know much about it.
R5 I have heard about it, but I do not know what it is all about.
R6 [The respondent explained the NCLBA. After clarifying that it is not the NCLBA] Well, from that standpoint, just the idea of getting everybody outdoors, giving them physical space outside.
R7 About the Act? About the Act itself, not too much. I know that it provides funding for initiatives that are supposed to help get children outside and whatnot. About the No Child Left Inside Movement, I actually know quite a bit.
R8 [The respondent talked about the NCLBA. After clarifying, he responded]. I do not actually know about the Act.
R9 Never heard of it.
R10 I do not know. I have heard of it, but I could not tell you anything about it.
R11 I do not know anything about that.
R12 Do not know anything about it. Is that something to do with not leaving the kids in the car or something?
80
Table F.4 Recurring Themes in Responses to Interview Question 4
Question: After explaining the Act, what is your opinion about it?
No. Response Recurring Themes
R1 There is another campus in our district that used to have an outdoor area attached to them. And off the top of my head, I think there is still an outdoor area for the district.
• One respondent (R1) pointed to another campus for information
• Interesting (R2)
• Only for recess (R9)
• Reiterated no knowledge about the Act (R7)
• The other respondents did not comment.
R2 That is interesting.
R3 If it is a way to get funding, which is something we desperately need, we definitely would like more information about that.
R4 No comment.
R5 No comment.
R6 No comment.
R7 As far as the actual details and the ins and outs of the legislation, I am not that familiar with it.
R8 No comment.
R9 The only outside time that I am aware of is for recess.
R10 No comment.
R11 No comment.
R12 No comment.
81
Table F.5 Recurring Themes in Responses to Interview Question 5
Question: Have the goals of the No Child Left Inside Act been incorporated into this school?
No. Response Recurring Themes
R1 Definitely maybe. We try to get them outside as much as we possibly can. But I do not know that there is always a real scientific purpose attached to it. It is probably more geared towards that, as opposed to the architectural, scientific aspect of the design.
• Maybe (R1)
• District is developing an outdoor learning center (R2)
• Not formally in the curriculum (R9)
• Depends on the teacher (R11)
• Question was skipped by R3, R5, R6, R7, R8, R10, and R11.
R2 As a district, we are now developing our own outdoor learning center, and it is located over in Justin. We have committees working right now on some curricular ideas for using that property.
R3 Skipped the question.
R4 Skipped the question.
R5 Skipped the question.
R6 Skipped the question.
R7 Skipped the question.
R8 Skipped the question.
R9 I know it is, but I do not know if it is specifically in the curriculum. I know there are multiple activities that they have incorporated to go along with that notion.
R10 Skipped the question.
R11 Whether or not the Act has been part of it, I do feel that our school, depending on the teacher and again depending on the activity, they do incorporate as much as they can. Part of that could be specifically because they appeal to a certain teacher’s personality or teaching style than another. Personally, I have not been made aware of this as being a formal policy that has been instituted at our school.
R12 Skipped the question.
82
Table F.6 Recurring Themes in Responses to Interview Question 6
Question: What do you foresee as to the barriers to the adoption of the No Child Left Inside Act by public schools in North Texas?
No. Response Recurring Themes
R1 Probably one of the biggest obstacles with a lot of people are just tradition; the fact that we have not done it that way before. We are doing all for TAKS, so the lives of the teachers revolve around the TAKS. The thing that would hold [the teachers] back would be the time element, the notion that they have to keep the children in.
• Tradition (R1 and R7)
• TAKS (R1, R2, R5, R8, R9, R10)
• Heat (R3)
• Safety (R3, R12)
• Politics (R4, R6)
• Not enough hours in the school day (R11)
• Not enough outdoor space (R11)
R2 Finding the right place for it within the existing curriculum because obviously, we have so many Texas requirements already embedded.
R3 There are two things that are barriers that I would see. One is the heat. The other one is safety.
R4 Politics. But if an educator can be shown that this will increase student achievement and it will increase student learning, I think educators should go for it.
R5 I do not think there is a barrier from a design perspective, but from schools adopting those kinds of things, I think that is more of an educational barrier, because I think a lot of focus is put on passing certain tests and meeting certain standards nowadays. And I think if educators felt like complying with some of these new standards, we are going to pull time away from what they are already struggling to accomplish.
R6 Politics.
R7 I was about to say ignorance, but I will make that number two instead of number one. The number one barrier to the adoption of the NCLIA is probably just inertia of the status quo. We have done things like this for so long, and you have such ingrained attitudes and policies from superintendents all the way down through the teaching ranks.
R8 I think the biggest barrier is right now (is) the laws are set up to do testing, the TAKS test. Schools, not that they want to, but because they are mandated to, teach towards getting those tests and not always teach towards the arts and the physical activities.
R9 The TAKS test is going to be your biggest barrier because [the teachers] are jammed with teaching the TAKS, which I do not necessarily agree with.
83
Table F.6 – Continued
Question: What do you foresee as to the barriers to the adoption of the No Child Left Inside Act by public schools in North Texas?
No. Response Recurring Themes
R10 I see the biggest barrier is the TAKS test and because apparently, our country and state feel like it is more important to have children pass a test that is specifically taught to, as opposed to giving them the essentials that they need outside: from a little break to reset their minds, getting some vitamin D outside in the sunshine, and blowing off some steam and some energy out playing.
R11 There are not enough hours in the school day to get everything in that they have to get in. It seems to me that one of the things that are often cut first are certainly the fine arts, and our school would be an example of that. Another thing is that there is not a lot of property surrounding the school besides parking, and you do not see the large play yards like you once did.
R12 I think the barriers might be safety. Both parents and school staff view everything from a safety point of view. So I do not think there is a barrier from my perspective, but from the schools’ perspective, there might be a barrier to adopting those kinds of things [from a safety standpoint].
84
Table F.7 Recurring Themes in Responses to Interview Question 7
Question: What do you foresee as to the opportunities to the adoption of the No Child Left Inside Act by public schools in North Texas?
No. Response Recurring Themes
R1 If you do it by edict, it does not go well. I think that, for most things, if they are going to make this thing work, it has to be sold as the benefits.
• Positive (R2, R3, R4, R5, R8, R9, R10, R11, R12)
• To tackle obesity (R10, R11)
• Will increase student learning (R3, R4, R9)
• Unplugging children from electronics (R9, R12)
• Enhance science learning (R5, R9)
• Better appreciation for the environment (R3)
• Increasing exercise (R3, R5)
• Incorporate different learning styles (R3, R9)
• Clear explanations and benefits about the Act (R1, R6)
R2 I think it is a fabulous idea. I think it is very important that kids have a real good appreciation of nature, of the environment. And I see it as a real plus if that could become part of what we do on a regular basis.
R3 There are outside environments that we would like to create here, but we have not had a chance to do that yet. We are trying to do an outside wellness area that is kind of for exercise. We also would like to do several kinds of gardens, learning gardens, but we would also like to have a little forest environment. We are a brain-based school and that oxygen and exercise really help children think and that being in a different environment and that getting kids to move and interact and talk with things is a much better way to learn.
R4 It is going to increase student learning and gives kids experiences that they may not typically have at home or anywhere else.
R5 I think just getting the children outside. Going back to the structured learning opportunities, I think there are a lot of opportunities outside of a school on a site to learn about, such as physical activities and science-related fields.
R6 I think they just need to make sure that everybody is clear on what those requirements are. If the Act is adopted, what are the pros and cons? Everybody should know going in what are their options. Too often, when someone passes something at one level, it does not really make it down to the people that are going to implement that to realize there is no benefit, the costs in time, money, and effort.
R7 Skipped the question.
R8 I feel like the opportunities are by enacting the Act, outdoor education is going to flow into all the subjects. I think incorporating that is going to help the children have more energy, be more alert in class, and just be active, not just at the school, but in their community. The more they are active and feel good about themselves, the more they are going to do other stuff.
85
Table F.7 – Continued
Question: What do you foresee as to the opportunities to the adoption of the No Child Left Inside Act by public schools in North Texas?
No. Response Recurring Themes
R9 It is an opportunity to get children off of the computers, off of the videogames for a little while, away from the TV for a little while, if they are doing it at home. Those things are positive. It is an opportunity to teach science in a hands-on way that reinforces some learning styles that are not just listening, but also touching and seeing. And I think when you incorporate more learning styles at a time, it tends to increase memory and give a better educational experience.
R10 I think just the growing obesity rates of our society is a sign. I am not sure how well the TAKS test is actually helping produce children that are smarter and more prepared for college and life in general. So hopefully, they will take all that into consideration and give them a couple breaks throughout the day to play and be children.
R11 I would say that would be the best offense as far as getting something like this pushed through the schools: focusing on that important health issue [obesity]. I think most people recognize obesity as a problem.
R12 I think just getting the children outside, unplugging the children from the electronics and the structures of the school system. I think there are a lot of opportunities outside and it would be great to see more outdoor learning outside.
.
86
APPENDIX G
INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTS
87
(1) Describe the experiences that the children have with the outdoor environment
at this school.
Respondent 1: At this particular campus, we have, I guess, an unusual thing: there is a
creek close by to us. Occasionally, not on a real often basis but occasionally, our fifth grade
science teacher will take the kids out and they will walk the creek bed or get down, and
obviously, not in high water time. They will go out and look for insects and things in the grass.
They also go to the playground. So they use it pretty often, but that’s more of a springtime
activity than a fall activity.
Respondent 2: We have two playground areas and a pretty large field. So the children
have their recess time in those areas. And then, on nice days, the PE teacher will do some of
her lessons outdoors. So that’s primarily how we use our yard.
Respondent 3: Every class has two recess times, a morning and an afternoon, and we
call them brain breaks because we want them to go out and get a lot of exercise so that they
come back in and their learning is at an optimal place, so we’re outside at least twice a day. We
have an outdoor runners club twice a week that goes around our outdoor area and runs with
parents and kids and everything. We have about 250 in our runners club. We have the
gardening club and the science club that are outside, and we are very environmentally friendly.
We have a leadership team that works on the environment and helping us to be
interactive with the environment. We certainly believe that outdoor learning is a high priority, so
our teachers haven’t done as much as they will but we have classes outside, we meet outside,
we have a great outdoor area, we do outside assemblies, and I have already had an outside
assembly with the whole school. We put our sound system out there and had about 1,000
parents and kids out there participating in our character assembly to begin the year. We’ve
started building gardens.
Parents are coming either this weekend or next to put together the other five gardens
that go along with kindergarten. Our after-school program has a gardening program, and once
88
we get going, we will have a gardening program for our students, too. We have studied
butterflies and we do a butterfly garden and we have a scent garden that we always like to put
together. We do a lot of those things that are outside for kids, so we’re very engaged in the
outside.
Respondent 4: This school is very limited because we are a brand new campus
establishing new cultures and new expectations, so the only actual outdoor experiences our
kids have are actually on our fields behind us and our playground areas. We are not doing any
types of outdoor classrooms. We’re not doing any type of landscape classes or anything like
that at this point. Those are in the plans.
Respondent 5: Well, I think outdoor education will be a big part of it. We have got a
courtyard, in particular, and the interior spaces face outward. So I think they are going to
experience some passive education, just viewing from inside classes to the outdoor landscape.
I think they are going to observe some of the planting programs we have put in place. So I think
there is going to be some passive education about rainfall and water harvesting that they can
actually see from inside the building.
I think they can see a rainfall event and see how that water collects on the ground, then
goes to the creek. So I think there is some passive experience there. I think when they are
outside in the landscape, there are going to be some structured learning opportunities. There’s
an outdoor classroom that I think kids will use for certain outdoor lessons and gatherings.
I think they are going to experience some ownership of the outdoor gardens. There’s
going to be some raised gardens out there to which kids are going to tend, and so they are
going to see how a garden starts and how it’s cared for and how it grows. We have some
informal places out there that I think they are just going to experience as unstructured play; just
places to run around and explore. There are playgrounds in which kids are going to exercise
and games and outdoor activities. There is also a nature center that I think they’ll experience
from a passive perspective just walking down trails and kind of exploring the natural areas of the
89
site. Those are learning opportunities for science as well and to do little mini fieldtrips outdoors
and things like that.
Respondent 6: I think the thing that we attempted to do was to offer them some
exposure to the art elements, design principles, colors, textures, things like that, and sense of
space. Not only do we just allow them to get back and forth, but we’re trying to give them an
opportunity to experience something in the landscape that’s unique through the choice of plant
materials or earth forms or walkway layout and things like that. That is what we were striving
for.
Respondent 7: It varies dramatically, depending on the environment in which the
elementary school is located. My elementary school experience started with leaving home and
walking to school and getting to a campus that had lots of outdoor space. I remember there
was a huge pecan tree that was like home base for everybody, and that is where everybody
hung out and had conversations, and you caught up with the gossip, passed notes, and all that
kind of thing. And that was probably the soul of that particular campus, I remember. And you
had the tether ball poles and the sports fields and all those types of things. It seemed like kind
of a whole environment that felt good.
My children went to two different elementary schools in Arlington, and one had kind of a
nurturing environment like that, and the other was more like a prison yard with this concrete
courtyard and just really kind of oppressive. And no matter how much I talked to the principal
about the connections between children and learning and environment and those types of
things, he always replied that he had other things to do and he did not have time to talk about
this.
So I think for better or for worse, it just varies dramatically. There is an elementary
school about three blocks from this house in which we are sitting that is in an old building,
probably built in the ’30s, with wonderful tile and murals on the walls, and the spaces are well
crafted. There are really tall windows and probably 14-foot ceilings. Really tall windows with
90
arched tops, and the proportions and whatnot are just the types of things that make people feel
good. That has to somehow translate into a better learning environment than the one in which
my kids grew up: an established neighborhood, trees, all that sorts of natural things. Not a lot
of sports fields, but I think that’s an acceptable tradeoff at that age.
Respondent 8: Well, I think our school is pretty spacious compared to some other
schools that I have seen. So they have a lot of space. They have one area dedicated to
physical playground equipment, areas for free play in which they can just run around and do
tag. There are trees and benches. So they have a little bit of everything, depending on the age
of the students. And they have one playground that’s just for the little kids and one for the
bigger kids. So I think they have a good experience, most of them.
Respondent 9: I think all they do here is PE indoors, and then I think they have their
recess time outside on the playground, if I’m not mistaken. And I am not sure how long that
lasts. I would guess that is probably 20 to 30 minutes. We have a nice playground outside with
playground equipment and a swing set, and not much else. In the future we should probably
put in some kind of a basketball court nearby in which children can make use of a concrete
surface too. And they have that open field next door, so I could envision the children having a
soccer field or something over there as well.
Respondent 10: They love the outdoor environment. The teachers use it extensively,
and we have incorporated it into our Fall Festival Carnival as well.
Respondent 11: Every day, weather permitting, the children go out for most of their
PE period, and they have a recess period which they spend outdoors everyday if the weather is
good as well. There is a certain temperature range—if it’s above or below a certain degree, for
example—they will not let them go out and play. However, these instances are rare.
I believe the recess time for children is about 20 minutes long or so, maybe longer on
really nice days, and their PE period is 45 minutes, but not all of the PE period is spent
outdoors. Children may have some instruction indoors in the gym and then go out to perform
91
whatever task has been instructed or possibly walk laps. Lately, they have been doing units in
which they are learning about different sports, so they have been golfing outside or bowling
outside on the blacktop.
Respondent 12: Well, I think outdoor education is limited to recess and exercise
periods only. I think they are going to get to participate later in some of the planting programs
that the school plans to put in place for the playground. There is a lot of outdoor space that I
think children will use for certain outdoor lessons.
The playground has some informal places out there that can be used for play; a place in
which the kids can explore. Children are really curious about everything. They are always
asking what we are doing when we are working on the property. And this school had a
committee that the administration put together for the landscape. The administration wanted to
get input on the landscape design, but only for the athletics and the education portion, and what
they wanted the front of the school to look like.
(2) Describe how the outdoor environment has been incorporated into the
educational experience at this school.
Respondent 1: Children would go out sometimes for their science classes, and mainly
the fifth grade; third and fourth graders will go out sometimes. They go outside at the
appropriate time looking for insects—ladybugs and different things they see in the grass. They
use the creek. And the children exercise a lot, but only when they go out for exercise.
However, exercising is not taking advantage of all the plants and natural things. Environmental
education is just being outdoors, in the great outdoors, experiencing the climate, under the sun.
There is some of that, but it is not a daily thing. So they use the outdoor environment to some
degree.
Respondent 2: Well, we were very fortunate. We have a lot of wildlife that seems to
like to visit us every now and again. So we had a bird nest out there last spring and it laid eggs,
and the birds tended it, and there were baby birds. So I had a group of fifth graders who were
92
like the protectors of the birds. And the whole school talked about it. And we had fun watching
the progress and we took pictures. This year we have had a coyote that is very young, and it
would stay out in the back, but occasionally we would get glimpses of him. It is all fenced, so
we were not very concerned about the coyote being a threat. It was fun to see the children
noticing their environment when they are outside, because we do have such a beautiful layout
here with the trees and it is great. Teachers will take classrooms out, and they do some
science observations out there. We have grade levels working on soil right now. So they have
gone out and looked in nature to see if they can find different samples of it in the area. I saw a
second grade class outside with chocolate and magnifying glasses. They were studying heat
and energy and were having fun trying to make the chocolate melt and making observations
about the experiment.
Respondent 3: One of the things that we do is we mix up [the classes] for specials
(PE, art, music, Spanish, among others). We regularly mix up for specials outside, so that
means every day when kids go to their specials, they do not go with their class, they go with a
different group of children, so a whole grade level or a whole vertical team will go outside and
they remix up to go to their special classes. Everybody meets outside at least once a day for
something other than recess.
Kindergarten teachers talk about gardens, and so that is actually a part of our science
curriculum that goes right along with it. Our science room has a door that goes to the outdoors
so children can work in the science lab, and that science lab goes immediately outdoors so they
can work outside with the experiments that they are doing in the science lab. The same applies
for our art room. The art room has a door right to the outside, so students can go outside and
do sketches and work right from the art room back and forth. So there is a lot of interaction in
those two particular classes in which they do that. Classes love being outside so we encourage
not so much that they are interacting with the environment, because they are just in the outside
environment.
93
We do a lot of activities outside. We are getting ready to have mad scientist day on the
21st of October and all the mad scientist day experiments are outside. They do things outside
and then come back in and share information, but it is all outside stuff. We really tried to get our
whole school, our whole block fenced in, but we could not get that approved by the city.
Eventually, though, we will have this whole block so children can be outside and fenced in and
safe and they can do all those activities and we are not worried about the outside environment
coming in and encroaching on that. I think we are very focused on outdoor learning. We do
jump rope club outside and just a lot of things outside.
Respondent 4: Very little, because we are just establishing the cultures and climates of
this campus. There are some things we have not ventured into yet, because once we start
getting into those things, those are in addition to all the other things we do. Those are
supplements to the classroom learning, and at this point we are still establishing the
expectations in the classrooms, so we are limiting the scope of what our teachers have the
option to do right now.
Respondent 5: I think a big part of it is science based. The science program at this
school is pretty strong, and the science teacher had a lot to do with the programming of the site
and the design review of the site. So I think we incorporated a lot of that into the outdoor areas,
because it is a good opportunity to pump up their science program.
As far as educational opportunities, I think there is a big native area that we worked
really hard to preserve on this site. We planned parking and building placement around it. So I
think that is a big thing. We preserved native understory and tree canopy. There is natural flora
and fauna that the children will go out and explore. They do experiments, catch bugs, ID plants,
and do things like that. I think there are science-based opportunities there.
I think there are some opportunities to tend gardens, collect drain water, and observe
plants in the structured areas that we have designed and built. And then there are plenty of
94
active areas for outdoor games and activities, which are not so much educational, I think, in a
structured sense, but just as passive learning. I think there are plenty of those areas.
There are a lot of dual-purpose elements to this design. Yes, we have structured
―outdoor classrooms‖. We have raised gardens, but those also double as just little impromptu
gathering areas. And children are going to gather in small groups or read a book or just kind of
devise their own games and uses for some of these structures. So we have some structured
opportunities, but a lot of it is unstructured as well.
Respondent 6: The schools are all quite new, and Northwest ISD is struggling just to
keep up with enrollment. But we have interviewed the Northwest ISD people, superintendents
and everybody, to find out what they felt they needed in the landscape and try to accommodate
their needs. And we also visited with a couple of principals and faculty members just to find out
what they felt needed to be in the landscape and the exterior environment.
Some of the schools are going to pursue the outdoor nature center classroom concept.
So we allowed them some space in which to do that, let them experiment and do what they
wanted to with that space. So we gave them open area. And we modified landscape and
irrigation components to allow for that. And we also coordinated with the architects to consider
recycling some of the roof water, rainwater, and downspouts and put them in a place in which
they can catch the water and use it.
Now, I don’t know when they’re going to do those things. Like I say, most of the times
in schools, we found that probably it takes three to four years for them to get the student
enrollment settled into a new school and then begin to experiment into the landscape. So it
may be a while before all these nature centers come on board, but that is the intent. We have a
goal.
Respondent 7: I think it varies dramatically. There was no real outdoor experience in
my children’s elementary school, other than going outside for sports and field day, playing
games, and whatnot. I thought it was really ironic because in their science classes they were
95
learning about ecosystems and the rain forest in South America. And I asked the teacher ―did
you ever think about walking them a block down the street to Johnson Creek and learning about
the urban ecosystems there and the urban wildlife and all the cool stuff that happens and
flooding?‖ There are red foxes down there, and there are turtles, and there is all this great stuff.
They looked at me like I was from Mars when I asked. They had no idea what I was talking
about. Conversely, this outdoor deck classroom that I designed for this school in Louisiana for
my little brother’s elementary school was a bona fide Palmetto swamp on which the elementary
school was on the one little piece of non-floodplain land on that property, and the rest of it was
Palmetto swamp. So what do you do to take advantage of that? They used that as a learning
environment and actually took the children out over a boardwalk out in the middle of all these
Cypress trees with Palmettos all around. And there were snakes and probably alligators and all
kinds of things. It was an outdoor classroom in the year 1976 or 1977, long time ago. But
again, I do not think that they were trying so much to be cutting edge, as much as they were just
trying to take advantage of the cards that they were dealt. They didn’t have a lot of outdoor
space. They had swamp.
Respondent 8: I know a little bit about it, but not a lot because I just started last couple
months as PTA president. So I do know that the gym teacher takes them out and does specific
activities outside a lot, especially if the weather is nice, and then she is bringing them out a lot.
And I know they have special events outside. So any time there is an event in which they can
get the kids out and active, they bring them out. So there are a lot of outdoor field trips. But
that’s about all I know.
Respondent 9: I think it is just an outlet for when their energies pent up, and they need
to get outside and run off some steam. I think that is probably the primary thing right now. I do
not know if they are using the outdoors for anything educational. Probably just more for
exercise and fitness, but I do not think it is anything organized at this point. It is just unorganized
play.
96
Respondent 10: The school is meeting some of their TAKS requirements and with
some scientific experiments on physical activity and looking for bugs for their science
experiments. And they have little things that they have to do for PE out there.
Respondent 11: Mostly, it is just used for the physical education or the recess period.
However, we also have a courtyard in the middle of our school that is completely enclosed by all
the hallways, and there is a gazebo and some benches and a landscaped area. Sometimes the
children will go out with their classroom teacher possibly for a reading assignment or maybe for
a science observation if they are talking about plants or something of that nature.
Respondent 12: I do not really think they have any incorporation into the education. I
think they just use it for play and exercise.
(3) What do you know about the No Child Left Inside Act?
Respondent 1: What do I know about it? Probably nothing, but I can guess what it is.
Would you explain it to me?
Respondent 2: No Child Left Behind? Inside? Okay. Well, obviously, I do not know
much about that.
Respondent 3: I heard what you said and I do not know anything about that Act.
Respondent 4: I have heard about it. I have read about it. Do not know much about it
though.
Respondent 5: Do not know anything about it. I have heard about it, but I do not know
what it is all about.
Respondent 6: Well, the idea was to make education available to everyone, and not
only to just make education available, but to make the spatial experience or the school
experience unique as well. So I think that is about my understanding of what that was all about.
So it is not only just to give them a physical plan, but also to give them a space that challenges
and encourages them to stay engaged rather than just go to school.
97
(The respondent talked about the No Child Left Behind Act. When the interviewers
made the clarification about the NCLIA, he then responded accordingly, as follows.)
Well, from that standpoint, just the idea of getting everybody outdoors, giving them
physical space outside. And not only to just give them that space, but to make that space a little
bit more challenging for them. Working with the designer to play with the sculptural qualities of
the space, instead of just having everything flat, which makes it easy to mow, but it does not
really do much from the children’s standpoint of saying, ―Hey, here’s a little hill. Let’s play with
that.‖ So the idea of introducing some berms and some hills and outdoor classrooms.
Sometimes, if you just berm something up, it could be like a little amphitheater. So playing with
the earth forms was just an attempt to get the teachers to get the children out and use the
space. Not just let the kids go crazy, but use the outdoor space as a classroom as well.
Respondent 7: About the Act? About the Act itself, not too much. I know that it
provides funding for initiatives that are supposed to help get children outside and whatnot.
About the No Child Left Inside Movement, I actually know quite a bit. I have been on the Board
of the River Legacy Foundation for eight years, and I was president the last two years. And we
found the way that Richard Louv thought about things and packaged things and talked about
them to people really resonated with folks. He was saying things that we felt like all of us
instinctively knew, but he was putting it in such a way and tying it to anecdotal medical evidence
and whatnot that made it very, very compelling. It opened the doors to lots of partnerships with
us for funding from the medical community, and all of a sudden, the park system got religion,
and the schools got religion, and everybody wanted to try to take advantage of these three
miles of urban riverfront that we had along out there for outdoor learning opportunities, outdoor
classroom, and that type of thing.
I actually saw Richard Louv speak at a conference up in Vermont, and it was really
inspiring. This was a teachers’ conference. This was not a landscape architecture conference.
And he was able to really get those folks worked up and ready to go back to their schools or
98
their nonprofits or wherever they had come from, all over the country, and start to implement
some of those ideas and to insist to their doctors that they need to be thinking in terms of
prescriptions for so much time outside and this sort of thing.
Respondent 8: (The respondent talked about the NCLBA. After clarifying, he
responded.) I do not actually know about the Act. I do not know anything about it. No.
Respondent 9: Never heard of it.
Respondent 10: I do not know. I have heard of it, but I could not tell you anything
about it.
Respondent 11: I do not know anything about that.
Respondent 12: Do not know anything about it. Is that something to do with not
leaving the kids in the car or something?
(3.1) After explaining the Act, what is your opinion about it?
Respondent 1: There is another campus in our district that used to have an outdoor
area attached to them. And off the top of my head, I think there is still an outdoor area for the
district. And you might check with one of our science coordinators, Toni Jenkins, to find out
about that.
Respondent 2: That is interesting.
Respondent 3: Okay, so it is a way to get funding, which is something we desperately
need, so we definitely would like more information about that.
Respondent 4: No comment.
Respondent 5: No comment.
Respondent 6: (Commented on previous question.)
Respondent 7: As far as the actual details and the ins and outs of the legislation, I am
not that familiar with it.
Respondent 8: (The respondent made affirmative comments throughout the
explanations about the Act.)
99
Respondent 9: My child has not come home talking about doing any kind of science
experiments outside or that kind of thing. The only outside time that I am aware of is for recess.
Respondent 10: No comment.
Respondent 11: No comment.
Respondent 12: No comment.
(4) Have the goals of the No Child Left Inside Act been incorporated into this
school?
Respondent 1: Definitely maybe. We try to get them outside as much as we possibly
can. But I do not know that there is always a real scientific purpose attached to it. The children
eat, ride, and exercise outside, are exposed to sunshine. It is probably more geared towards
that, as opposed to the architectural, scientific aspect of the design. There are some scientific
reasons for going outside and studying and catching little creatures, but I do not know that I
would say the No Child Left Inside has been implemented at any real strong degree.
Respondent 2: Well, as a district, we are now developing our own outdoor learning
center, and it is located over in another part of town. I cannot remember how many acres it is,
but it is a very large piece of property. And it has some tanks on it. It has a river going through
it. And it is going to be a marvelous learning center, primarily focusing on fourth grade and
eighth grade. We have committees working right now on some curricular ideas for using that
property, and it is really gorgeous. It has deer and just all kinds of wildlife out there.
If you go onto the district website, I am pretty sure there is a link. I can go in and I can
pull up pictures of it, because we have cameras out there that are live all the time. And so
occasionally that is updated. And we can show the children now what it looks like. We have
captured pictures of the deer and that kind of thing.
Respondent 3: Skipped the question.
Respondent 4: Not yet. At this point there is nothing legally binding us to have
external activities, so therefore, at this point it is not a focus. It is in my personal long-term
100
vision, though. We have places on this campus for the spring. We are going to bring in
donations and have kids outside planting stuff around the building. Research has shown that
exterior building is just as important, learning-wise and student structure-wise, as the interior of
the building. We are all aware of that, but once again this building just opened. It finally got it
ready the week before we started. The roads out here are obviously still not done, so there is
some constraints that we are working with that are not typical, but long-range visions, bringing
in and incorporating those parts of external and landscaping and the outside resources, are
what we are going to do eventually. However, we are not there yet.
Respondent 5: Skipped the question.
Respondent 6: Skipped the question.
Respondent 7: Skipped the question.
Respondent 8: Skipped the question.
Respondent 9: I know it is, but I do not know if it is specifically in the curriculum. I
know there are multiple activities that they have incorporated to kind of go along with that
notion. For example, they have a field day in which they go out and spend all day doing
activities outside. They protect their recess time and make sure that they have not cut those,
because a lot of schools really have cut those back a lot. So I know a lot of parents are really
kind of pushing that. And we are working on trying to get funding through a fundraiser to put
together a special event. It is called a Boost-a-Thon, and the organization that does it comes
out and spends a whole week talking about physical education and talking about the importance
of being active. And then they include the education component to combine it. At the end of
the day or end of the week, they have this big event in which all the children run and do a little
children marathon. We are trying to get that company to come to us, but it is a money issue.
That is something they are doing. And then I do not know if this plays into it.
Environmental education as far as being aware of the environment around them? I did
not know if it was all just on the physical aspect because we do have a green team, and it is a
101
group of students who do all kinds of stuff all over campus. But as you can see, they have the
recycle bins in all the rooms and they are really big on enforcing recycling. So that is
incorporated. The green team is the one leading it. From what I have seen, they try to get the
kids to serve as the examples because if some children are doing it, then others follow, and it is
easier for them to do it like that rather than to have adults dictating it.
Respondent 10: Skipped the question.
Respondent 11: Whether or not the Act has been part of it, I do feel that our school,
depending on the teacher and again depending on the activity, they do incorporate as much as
they can. Now again, part of that could be specifically because they appeal to a certain
teacher’s personality or teaching style than another. Personally, I have not been made aware of
this as being a formal policy that has been instituted at our school. We have a huge school
grounds area that is a city block, so I would say well over an acre. Part of the land around our
school and part of our playground is actually a city park. It is a joint project from the city as well
as from the school, so during school hours, it is the school playground and playground
equipment. After school hours, it becomes a city park and it is for public use. As I said, there is
a lot of land, just grass area that we do not utilize on a daily basis, but given that we do have so
much area that is grass, I do feel that our students are outside quite a bit. Now again, I do not
know if the Act is the reason for that or not.
Respondent 12: Skipped the question.
(5) What do you foresee as to the barriers to the adoption of the No Child Left
Inside Act by public schools in North Texas?
Respondent 1: Probably one of the biggest obstacles with a lot of people are just
tradition; the fact that we have not done it that way before. If there is a new idea, we do not
have time for that type of thing. So I think probably most schools that believe in utilizing the
outdoors, it will not be a problem. But then the biggest complaint that I receive from teachers
anytime we want to add something or change something is that they do not have time. We are
102
doing all for TAKS – especially the third, fourth, and fifth grade teachers. So their whole lives
rotate around TAKS. And if there is anything that is going to interfere with that, it sends them
into rigor sometimes. We also have some traditional teachers who do not like to change. But
the true people with outdoors at heart and purpose, good purpose at heart, they will embrace it.
The thing that would hold them back would be the time element, the notion that they
have to keep the children in. We have to tutor; we have to do this if they are weak in math or
weak in another subject, so we have to stay inside. We have to do all this instead of going
outside.
Respondent 2: Well, finding the right place for it within the existing curriculum because
obviously, we have so many Texas requirements already embedded. I think that would be the
biggest barrier is just finding where it fits.
Respondent 3: There are two things that are barriers that I would see. One is the heat.
You cannot let children outside for the whole beginning of the school year. It is very difficult and
even though we have a shaded playground here, it is still extremely hot and they can only be
out there a short time. It is so detrimental. Nothing can grow; nothing can live. It just stifles
everything at the very beginning of school and at the very end of school.
Then the other one is safety. You just have to be so sure that when you are outside like
that, the community, the surrounding community, is not going to interact with that. At my old
school, we were just very close to where there were a number of people who had abused
children and we had their names, so parents were very nervous about us being outside and
having children outside where somebody could come by and snatch them. I think those are the
two huge concerns that I would see for being outside.
Respondent 4: As far as adoption of the policy? Obviously, it is a political policy and a
political agenda, so therefore you are always going to have those types of barriers. As far as
garnering support from educators, as long as what the research is showing, I think most
educators have the child’s needs in heart and in mind. Therefore, if an educator can be shown
103
that this will increase student achievement and it will increase student learning, I think educators
should go for it.
Respondent 5: It is possible that some of those funds might have been pursued on this
project and we just did not know about it, because it has been initiated but it has not been put
into law as far as in the education system where they are making it a mandate. From a design
standpoint, I do not think we perceive any barriers to it. I think that is something that architects
and landscape architects would love to see. If there were mandatory programs or funding
opportunities that would allow us to do more creative things with outdoor spaces or would allow
us to put more focus on outdoor spaces, I think we would love to see that.
I do not think there is a barrier from a design perspective, but from schools adopting
those kinds of things, I think that is more of an educational barrier, because I think a lot of focus
is put on passing certain tests and meeting certain standards nowadays. And I think if
educators felt like complying with some of these new standards, we are going to pull time away
from what they are already struggling to accomplish. I think that might be one of the biggest
barriers.
Respondent 6: Politics. I do not see any reason why someone would not adopt that. If
it is a funded element, then there is no reason not to accept that. If it is politics and somebody
says, ―Okay, we’ll give you those funds, but you got to do this, this and this‖, I think those
restrictions have to be pretty well figured out before everybody is going to say, ―We’re on
board.‖
But I do not see the reason why anyone would be opposed to that concept. It is just
allowing and encouraging the schools and the school districts to promote more of the exterior
environment. It does not have to be just exterior. It can be interior as well. What can they do to
bring the indoors out and the outdoors in?
I know we did a high school back a couple years ago that, here in Arlington, that had an
interior plant space in their big gathering social area inside. And there were a lot of politics
104
involved with that, and there were a lot of commercials on TV about wasted money. However,
over the ages, the students have really used that space more, because it was much more
exciting than just a big flat open area. So I think they found that there is a value to that. Now,
how you budget that into a project in today’s economy is a little tight, but I could see more of
that taking place. Bringing more of the outside in, I think, is going to be just as exciting as vice-
versa. This is the outside, but let’s share the two together. Along with that, we can coordinate
with the architects to give them more open window space. You will notice when you go to some
of these schools, there are a lot of windows that come to the floor, especially in their social
areas. So that was intent to do that, to bring that indoor/outdoor relationship a little closer into
the project. And now that is not in the classrooms, of course. That is only in the social areas.
In these major courtyards, a lot of glass opened onto the outdoor space. It seemed like
as when we had a lot of windows way back in the ’50s. The period changed and we have just
walls and no windows. It is like a cave and very isolating and uncomfortable. And they spend
eight hours a day in that confined space. They need to spend more in the outdoor environment.
I think we are realizing that we have far too little time in school.
Respondent 7: I was about to say ignorance, but I will make that number two instead
of number one. The number one barrier to the adoption of the NCLIA is probably just inertia of
the status quo. We have done things like this for so long, and you have such ingrained attitudes
and policies from superintendents all the way down through the teaching ranks. Something that
radically different than the way things have been for decades is just really hard to get off the
ground, unless you have a champion at the grassroots level, whether it is a just off-the-charts,
enthusiastic, brilliant, fifth grade science teacher or whoever happens to be the president of the
PTA that year, who knows about this type of thing and feels really strongly about implementing
it and has the kind of charisma that she or he can get lots of other people on board. I think it is
an uphill struggle, unless you have individuals like that rather than districts adopting this stuff. I
105
could be completely wrong about that, but that is just how things seem to happen to me in my
life experience.
However, I think once you get one or two successful projects built and off the ground, it
becomes the type of thing that can build momentum really quickly just from the standpoint of
kind of human nature that people in schools are competitive with one another, and if this one
has something, you want that for the school to which your children go.
I could see the Act catching on, but it is almost like you need one or two really great
pilot projects to demonstrate how this could work. So I think the barrier is status quo, just long-
time ingrained attitudes, and ignorance. I do not think that a lot of superintendents, school
district staff, and educators really understand the benefits that can come out of really fully
incorporating an outdoor environment as part of a learning experience and how you can take
that raw resource that you have, which is the property around the school, and design it in such a
way where it can just add layers of richness to the educational experience. I am seeing a lot
more in private schools, frankly, than I am in public schools.
Respondent 8: Now, I am not an educator, but from what I see as a parent and PTA
and just observing as a substitute teacher, I think the biggest barrier is right now (is) the laws
are set up to do testing, the TAKS test, for example. I feel sometimes that schools, not that they
want to, but because they are mandated to, teach towards getting those tests and not always
teach towards the arts and the physical activities. I think outdoor education is important. I think
if it can come down from the top, then the schools will embrace. They want to embrace it, but
sometimes I feel like they feel like their hands are tied, and they can only do so much. Money
could be a barrier, but I do not think it would. I think they would be creative enough to figure out
ways to fund it.
Respondent 9: In Texas in general, I would say the TAKS test is going to be your
biggest barrier because, as you mentioned, their schedules are jammed with teaching the
TAKS, which I do not necessarily agree with.
106
I like the idea of them, children getting some outside education. I do not necessarily
like the idea of mandating it. I like the teachers to have some freedom to do that kind of thing,
which the TAKS does not necessarily allow. But creating another Act that adds more
bureaucracy on top of what they are doing probably is not the answer either. I do like the idea
of children getting some outside education, maybe some science outside and some of the
things you mentioned, but I really do not like the idea of it being forced upon or legislated.
Respondent 10: I see the biggest barrier is the TAKS test and because apparently,
our country and state feel like it is more important to have children pass a test that is specifically
taught to, as opposed to giving them the essentials that they need outside: from a little break to
reset their minds, getting some vitamin D outside in the sunshine, and blowing off some steam
and some energy out playing. That is good for every child and it needs to be done, I think, twice
a day for a little bit. But instead, we would rather sit inside glued to our desk learning about a
test.
Respondent 11: Well I know again I cannot say that this specifically applies to our
school. We have very, relatively speaking, small student population of about 350 kids. I know
most of my friends that live in other areas and even other PTA presidents with whom I network
in my own district have schools that possibly have twice as many students. So with that kind of
large student population of 600 or 700 kids, there are not enough hours in the school day to get
everything in that they have to get in. It seems to me that one of the things that are often cut
first are certainly the fine arts, and our school would be an example of that. We no longer have
an art teacher or art program. It is just something that the classroom teachers try to incorporate
into their day. I know that in other schools they may rotate. They may not get a PE every day.
They have music one day and then PE next and things like that, because they cannot
accommodate the number of students that are now being zoned for these large schools.
Another issue I see for many of those schools is that now, because schools are so
large, a lot of times we are back to the two-story concept of building a mega school. There is
107
not a lot of property surrounding the school besides parking, and you do not see the large play
yards like you once did. There are a lot of things about our school that are not conducive to
carpool pickup and things like that. I could go on about all these things, but land is not
something we are short on as far as room and space to spread out and play. But I feel like I
know our students get to go to PE every day, and it has never been discussed at our school, to
my knowledge, that it would be any less than that. I am always surprised when I hear other
friends say their kids only go to PE a couple times a week, because certainly our home lives
have changed also, and the children have so many other options today of what they can do
besides going outside, ride their bicycle, kick the soccer ball, or play stick ball in the street, that
if they are not getting it at school they definitely may not be getting it at home.
Respondent 12: I think the barriers might be safety. Both parents and school staff
view everything from a safety point of view. So I do not think there is a barrier from my
perspective, but from the schools’ perspective, there might be a barrier to adopting those kinds
of things [from a safety standpoint].
(6) What do you foresee as to the opportunities to the adoption of the No Child Left
Inside Act by public schools in North Texas?
Respondent 1: If you do it by edict, it does not go well. I think that, for most things, if
they are going to make this thing work, it has to be sold as the benefits. And if you just say, ―By
golly, this is what we are going to do,‖ then it gets done without much spirit behind it. It gets
done maybe half of what you would like. What works better for our staff is if they have a clear
understanding of the purposes, if they know the benefits, if they are sold on the benefits. You
can do things by mandate or sell them. And sometimes mandates can be done, but they are
done not nearly as well. I would spend some time to enlighten the people, to educate those
implementing the different campuses, and make sure that they understand what is going on.
And also a little selling job along with it. Just do not say, ‖Here it is. Do it.‖ Things get thrown
at us all the time, and you do not have a very willing spirit pursuing it. So the obstacles would
108
be probably not enough information. The teachers need to find out and know what the Act is
about and know the benefits, how it is going to help their children, how it is going to help the
students overall. If you can tie it into everything, then it is much more likely it will be adopted.
Or if it’s just something else we have to do, then that will not go well. So the obstacles will
probably be not informing the people, not selling it.
Respondent 2: I think it is a fabulous idea. And we have a little group here called the
Green Team, so they are very much environmentally thoughtful. And they do some cleanup
projects and that kind of thing. I think it is very important that kids have a real good appreciation
of nature, of the environment. And I see it as a real plus if that could become part of what we
do on a regular basis.
Respondent 3: There are outside environments that we would like to create here, but
we have not had a chance to do that yet. However, we are raising money to do an outside kind
of path like an exercise path. We were raising money to have a track, but we do not have
enough space in this environment so we are not going to be able to do that. We are trying to do
an outside wellness area that is kind of for exercise. We also would like to do several kinds of
gardens, learning gardens, that I think I mentioned some of those before, but we would also like
to do like a little forest and have a little forest environment. We had a community that I know
will try to be involved again and it is a natural habitat community.
We do not bring in any pesticides or allow them. We do our own mowing and
everything to keep it in that kind of natural habitat and you can win awards for that, and we have
already done that one time before. I know we want to recreate something like that because it is
such a great outdoor learning experience. Once you get all those things going outside, children
are just outside and they just come upon those things which they just would not see otherwise.
We are definitely interested in those kinds of things.
We have kind of an amphitheater in the back. We would like to do more outdoor
learning things with an amphitheater approach. We would love to have a pond or we could
109
have some things growing, just some environments like that, and our teachers are working on
that. We actually have five vertical teams and they looked in the back and they are trying to
figure out how to section it off so each vertical team could have their own learning area and they
could add the things they wanted to it. Yet, how do we maintain that within the landscape
ambition of the district, is a question.
There are a few obstacles there, but we have a lot of outside plans. We are very
interested in outside education, and we believe that we are a brain-based school and that
oxygen and exercise really help children think and that being in a different environment and that
getting kids to move and interact and talk with things is a much better way to learn. Those are
all opportunities. When children are in that kind of engaged, interactive environment, they really
do learn.
Respondent 4: The benefits? You can go back to the research. It is going to increase
student learning and gives kids experiences that they may not typically have at home or
anywhere else. If it is more just legal mandates and legal expectations, at that point it becomes
questionable. You always have to look at who is pushing it, why are they pushing it, who is
funding it, why are they funding it, and what are the underlying motives. If the research is
showing an increase in student achievement because of the implementation of the Act, we will
be okay with it. It is just like anything else. If you get a child outside and give her those
experiences, learning is going to increase. The best way to learn science: get out and dig a
hole. Find what is in the ground. Therefore, luckily we are able to do those things and we will
be able to do those things. If I am sitting in the middle of Fort Worth, you may not be able to.
So we are pretty lucky that we will be able to do these things, but once again, we are still
working the bugs out as we go.
Respondent 5: I think just getting the children outside. Again, going back to the
structured learning opportunities, I think there are a lot of opportunities outside of a school on a
site to learn about, such as physical activities and science-related fields. So there are really
110
structured opportunities like that. It would be great to see more outdoor learning facilities and
actual structured places in which kids could feel like they are in a comfortable learning
environment. Out in nature, there is real seating, there is real shade, and there is a real place
for an instructor to give a class. So I think there are structured opportunities that I would like to
see incorporated, but then I think there is a really passive effect of just getting the children
outside, out of the structured interior classroom. Even if what children are doing really has
nothing to do with hunting down bugs or identifying plants or receiving a real lesson, I think just
getting kids out of their normal routine and getting them into an outdoor space to learn or to
have a function probably has a positive effect on just their ability to learn and to get through the
school day in general.
Respondent 6: I think they just need to make sure that everybody is clear on what
those requirements are. If the Act is adopted, what are the pros and cons? Everybody should
know going in what are their options. Too often, when someone passes something at one level,
it does not really make it down to the people that are going to implement that to realize there is
no benefit, the costs in time, money, and effort.
With the economy being what it is makes it difficult. We go to the school district, we try
to meet with the maintenance people and ask them how and what they do and use to maintain
this space. What do they use to buff the floors? What do they use to mow the grass? We try to
anticipate what their manpower requirements are going to be, because it is all economics.
If we can do all these things, but still save on manpower, then they are going to buy into
that much more readily. But if it is just going to cost them more, I do not think they are going to
go that route. I think everybody would agree that that is a desirable way to go, because
education right now is pretty stagnant. And if you can keep people excited, keeping them
interested, I think they will gain more from school. They will learn more from school. And it is
not just math and science; it is everything. If they are interested, they are going to be more
111
involved. So I think it is a matter of trying to get that interest level up some way, somehow,
whatever it takes.
Respondent 7: Skipped the question.
Respondent 8: I see it done. I am a big believer that technology is great, but we also
have to teach our children to take care of themselves. It is not just because of the obesity, but I
think it is because when they are healthy, their minds are better too. I feel like the opportunities
are by enacting the Act, outdoor education is going to flow into all the subjects. I think
incorporating that is going to help the children have more energy, be more alert in class, and
just be active, not just at the school, but in their community. The more they are active and feel
good about themselves, the more they are going to do other stuff. So I think it is one of those
things that have a ripple effect.
Respondent 9: Well, clearly, it is an opportunity to get children off of the computers, off
of the videogames for a little while, away from the TV for a little while, if they are doing it at
home. Those things are positive. It is an opportunity to teach science in a hands-on way that
reinforces some learning styles that are not just listening, but also touching and seeing.
And I think when you incorporate more learning styles at a time, it tends to increase
memory and give a better educational experience.
Respondent 10: I think just the growing obesity rates of our society are a sign. I am
not sure how well the TAKS test is actually helping produce children that are smarter and more
prepared for college and life in general. So hopefully, they will take all that into consideration
and give them a couple breaks throughout the day to play and be children.
Respondent 11: I think that something that is completely related to this problem is the
childhood obesity rates and how they have increased, and I know there is a huge concern. I
know that nationally, NPTA pushes for healthy lifestyles programs, which includes healthy
eating. Of course, there has been a big push lately with the television show and all that about
childhood nutrition, especially in schools. I think that the outdoors is an important piece of that
112
equation. We did not worry so much about what we ate when we were young children. I am
not saying that we did not make some of the same choices in my generation that children make
today. It is just that we were outside more and had more of an opportunity to burn it off. I think
that while the classroom instruction time is most certainly important and that seems to be the
focus of our schools at this point in time, we can see how sitting inside all day, at school and at
home, impacts children.
This generation, it will be very telling as to the health concerns and health problems that
they have probably as young adults, and maybe not middle age adults, because the obesity
started at a much earlier time in their lives. I feel like once that gets started, it is very difficult to
get that back under control. I would say that would be the best offense as far as getting
something like this pushed through the schools: focusing on that important health issue. I think
most people recognize obesity as a problem.
Respondent 12: I think just getting the children outside, unplugging the children from
the electronics and the structures of the school system. I think there are a lot of opportunities
outside and it would be great to see more outdoor learning outside.
113
REFERENCES
Armstrong, T. 1999. 7 kinds of smart: Identifying and developing your many intelligences.
New York NY: Plume.
Armstrong, T. 2009. Multiple intelligences in the classroom. Alexandria VA: Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Barrows, A. 1995. The Ecopsychology of Child Development, in Roszak, T., Gomes, M.
and Kanner, A. (Eds). Ecopsychology: restoring the Earth, healing the mind. New York: Sierra
Press.
Bennett, L. 2010. The school garden debate: to weep or reap. Retrieved from Center for
Ecoliteracy. http://www.ecoliteracy.org
Berg, M. and E. Medrich. 1980. Children in four neighbourhoods: the physical
environment and its effect on play and play patterns, Environment and Behaviour, 12(3), 320–
348.
Berto, R. 2005. Exposure to restorative environments helps restore attention capacity,
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(3), 249–259
Bird, D. 2007. Natural thinking: Investigating the links between the natural environment,
biodiversity and mental health. Loughborough, England: The Royal Society for the Protection of
Birds.
Bloom, B. et al. (Eds.) 1984. Taxonomy of educational objectives. Book 1: Cognitive
domain. White Plains NY: Longman.
Taylor, S. and R. Bogdan. 1998. Introduction to qualitative research methods: A guide
book and resource. New York NY: Wiley.
114
British Trust for Conservation Volunteers. 2009. Retrieved from
http://www2.btcv.org.uk/display/greengym_research
Burdette, H. and R. Whitaker. 2005. Resurrecting free play in young children: Looking
beyond fitness and fatness to attention, affiliation, and affect. Archives of Pediatrics and
Adolescent Medicine, 159, 46–50.
Brown, P., J. Sutterby and C. Thorton. 2001. Combating childhood obesity with physical
play opportunities. Children’s Institute for Learning and Development. Austin TX.
Bunting, T. and L. Cousins. 1985. Environmental dispositions among school-age children.
Environment and Behavior, 17(6).
Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority. 2009. Retrieved from http://allsystemsgo.
capmetro.org/capital-metrorail.shtml
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2010. Student health and academic
achievement. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/health_and_academics/index.htm
Charles, C. 2008. Retrieved from
http://www.childrenandnature.org/downloads/CNMovement.pdf
Chawla, L. 2006. Learning to Love the Natural World Enough to Protect It. Barn,
2, 57–78.
Chief Medical Officer. 2004. At least five a week: Evidence on the impact of physical
activity and its relationship to health. (Report: Published date: 29 April 2004, reference: 2389).
Retrieved from www.dh.gov.uk/en/publicationsandstatistics/Publications /PublicationsPolicy
andGuidance/DH_4080994
Cheskey, E. 2001. How Schoolyards Influence Behavior. in Greening School Grounds:
Creating Habitats for Learning. (Eds.) T. Grant and G. Littlejohn. Toronto: Green Teacher and
Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.
Children and Nature Network. 2009. Building a movement to reconnect children and
nature. Retrieved from http://www.cnaturenet.org
115
Chiles, P. 2005. The classroom as an evolving landscape. In Dudek, M. (ed.), Children’s
Spaces. Great Britain: Architectural Press, Elsevier Science Pub. 281.
Churchman, A. 2003. Is there a place for children in the city? Journal of Urban Design,
8(2), 99–111.
Clayton, S. and S. Opotow. 2003. Identity and the natural environment: The
psychological significance of nature. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Cohen, S. and D. Horm-Wingerg. 1993. Children and the environment: Ecological
awareness among preschool children. Environment and Behavior, 25(1), 103–120.
Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning (CASEL). 2008. The positive
impact of social and emotional learning for kindergarten to eighth-grade students. Retrieved from
http://www.casel.org
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. 2009. No Child Left Inside.
Retrieved from http://www.nochildleftinside.org
Dannenmaier, M. 1998. A children’s garden: Enchanting outdoor spaces for children and
parents. New York NY: Simon and Schuster.
Davis, J. 1998. Young Children, Environmental Education, and the Future. Early
Childhood Education Journal, 26(2), 117–123.
Doherty, W. and B. Carlson. 2003. Overscheduled Kids, Underconnected Families. 38–
43 in Take Back Your Time: Fighting Overwork and Time Poverty in America. ed. J. DeGraaf.
Berrett Koehler Publishing, Inc.
Donaldson, S. 2004. At least five a week: the evidence on the impact of physical activity
and its relationship to health (Research Report 2389). Retrieved from London Department of
Health, Physical Activity, Health Improvement and Prevention website: http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/
Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_4080994
116
Douglas, I. 2005. Urban green space and mental health. Paper presented at UK MAB
Urban Forum. Retrieved from http://www.ukmaburbanforum.co.uk/documents/papers/
ukmabgrnspcepap2.pdf
Fjortoft, I. 2001. The natural environment as a playground for children: the impact of
outdoor play activities in pre-primary school children: Early Childhood Education Journal, 29(2),
111–117.
Frankel, R. and K. Devers. 2000. Study design in qualitative research: Developing
questions and assessing resource needs. Education for Health, 13(2), 251–261.
Freuder, T. 2006. Designing for the future: Promoting eco-literacy in children’s outdoor
play environments (Unpublished master’s thesis). Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, Alexandria VA.
Frumkin, H., L. Frank, and D. Jackson. 2004. Urban sprawl and public health: Designing,
planning, and building for healthy communities. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Frumkin, H., R. Geller, and I. Rubin (Eds.). 2006. Safe and healthy school environments.
New York NY: Oxford University Press.
Gardner, H. 1991. The tensions between education and development. Journal of Moral
Development, 20(2), 113–125
Gardner, H. 1999. Intelligences reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New
York NY: Basic Books.
Ginsburg, K., Committee on Communications, and Committee on Psychosocial Aspects
of Child and Family Health. 2007. The Importance of Play in Promoting Healthy Development and
Maintaining Strong Parent-Child Bonds. American Academy Pediatrics Clinical Report: Pediatrics.
119:182.
Gebhard, Ulrich, P. Nevers, and E. Billmann-Mahecha. 2003. Moralizing trees:
Anthropomorphism and identity in children's relationships to nature. In S.D. Clayton.
117
Govtrack.us. 2009. Civic Project to Track Congress. Retrieved from http:
//www.govtrack.us/
Grant, T. and G. Little. 2001. Greening school grounds: Creating habitats for learning.
Gabriola Island, British Columbia: New Society Publishers.
Groves, L. and H. McNish. 2008. Neighbourhood Design and Children’s Outdoor Play:
evidence from northern California. Children, Youth and Environments, 18(2),160–179.
Hart, R. 1994. Project for public places. Retrieved from http://www.pps.org/
parks_plazas_squares/info/programs/program_features/right_to_play
Hart, R. 1982. Wildlands for Children: consideration of the value of natural environments
in landscape planning. Landschaft and Stadt, 14(1), 34–39.
Harvey, M. 1989. The Relationship between Children’s Experiences with Vegetation on
Schoolgrounds. Journal of Environmental Education 21(2), 9–18.
Higgs, A. and V. McMillan. 2006. Teaching through modeling: four schools’ experiences
in sustainability education. Journal of Environmental Education 38(1), 39–53.
Hodge, S. 2004. Outdoor learning environments: Evaluating need, success, and
sustainability. (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington TX.
Holmes, S. November 11, 1998. Children Study Longer and Play Less, Report Says.
New York Times, A18.
Inskeep, S. May 25, 2005. Saving Kids from Nature Deficit Disorder. (R. Louv,
Interviewer)
Johnson, D. April 7,,1998. Many schools putting an end to child’s play. New York Times,
A1–A16.
Johnson, J. and J. Hurley. 2002. A future ecology of urban parks: Reconnecting nature
and community in the landscape of children. Landscape Journal, 21(1), 110–115.
118
Kahn, P. 2002. Children affiliations with nature: Structure, development, and the problem
of environmental generational amnesia. In P. Kahn and S. Kellert (Eds.), Children and Nature:
Psychological, Sociocultural, and Evolutionary Investigations. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Kahn, P. and S. Kellert (Eds.). 2002. Children and Nature: Psychological, Sociocultural,
and Evolutionary Investigations. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Kahn, P. 2003. The development of environmental moral identity. In S. Clayton and S.
Opotow (Eds.), Identity and the natural environment: The psychological significance of nature.
Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Kals, E. and H. Ittner. 2003. Children’s Environmental Identity: Indicators and Behavioral
Impacts. In S.D. Clayton and S. Opotow (Eds.), Identity and the natural environment: The
psychological significance of nature. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Kaplan, S. 1995a. The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 169–182.
Kaplan, S. 1995b. The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 169–182.
Kaplan, S. 1989. The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. New York NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Kaplan, R. and S. Kaplan. 2002. Adolescents and the natural environment: A time out? In
P. Kahn and S. Kellert (Eds.), Children and Nature: Psychological, Sociocultural, and
Evolutionary Investigations. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Kaplan, R., S. Kaplan, and R. Ryan. 1998. With people in mind: Design and management
of everyday nature. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Kawamura, A. 2010. The school in every garden. Retrieved from the Center for
Ecoliteracy website: http://www.ecoliteracy.org/essays/school-every-garden
119
Kellert, S. 2002. Experiencing nature: Affective, cognitive and evaluative development in
children. In Children and Nature: Psychological, Sociocultural, and Evolutionary Investigations.
Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Kellert, S. 2005. Building for life. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Kellert, S., J. Heerwagen, and M. Mador (Eds.). 2008. Biophilic design: The theory,
science, and practice of bringing buildings to life. Hoboken NJ: Wiley.
Kolb, D. and R. Boyatzis. 2009. Experiential Learning Theory: Previous research and
new directions. In R.J. Sternberg and L.F. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on cognitive, learning, and
thinking styles. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Retrieved from http://www.d.umn.edu/~kgilbert/educ5165-
731/Readings/experiential-learning-theory.pdf
Kolb D. 1984. Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and
development. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall.
Korpela, K. and M., Hartig, T. 1996. Restorative qualities of favorite places. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 16, 221- 223
Kuo, F. 2003. Book review of Children and Nature: Psychological, Sociocultural, and
Evolutionary Investigations Children, Youth and Environments 13(1). Retrieved from
cye.colorado.edu:8080/CYElom/BookReviews/BookReview49
Kyttä, M. 2004. The extent of children's independent mobility and the number of
actualized affordances as criteria for child-friendly environments, Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 24(2), 179–198.
Leave No Child Inside of Greater Cincinnati. 2009. Leave No Child Inside. Retrieved from
http://www.lncigc.org
Leiberman, G. and L. Hoody. 1998. Closing the achievement gap: using the environment
as an integrated context for learning. Poway CA: Science Wizards.
Lekies, N. 2006. Pathways from adult nature experiences to adult environmentalism.
Colorado Education Journal, 1–24.
120
Lennard. 1969. The Forgotten Child. In B. Rudofsky, Streets for People (328). New York
NY: Doubleday and Company, Inc.
Lennard. 2000. The Forgotten Child. Carmel CA: Gondolier Press.
Lester, S. and M. Maudsley. 2006. Play, Naturally: a review of children’s natural play, The
Children’s Play Council: Retrieved from http://www.playday.org.uk/PDF/play-naturally-a-review-
of-childrens-natural%20play.pdf
Lin, S. 2008. The case for make-believe; Saving play in a commercial world. New York
NY: The News Press.
Lindemann-Mathies, P. 2006. Investigating nature on the way to school: Responses to an
educational programme by teachers and their pupils. International Journal of Science Education,
28(8), 895–918.
Louv, R. 2005. Last Child in the Woods: saving our children from nature-deficit disorder.
Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill NC.
Louv, R. 2009. Children and Nature Network. Retrieved from
http://www.childrenandnature.org/blog/
Louv, R. 2008a. Children and Nature Network. Retrieved from
http://www.childrenandnature.org/
Louv, R. 2008b. Last child in the woods. North Carolina: Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill.
Lucas, B. 1995. Learning through landscapes: An organization’s attempt to move school
grounds to the top of the educational agenda. Children’s Environments 12(2), 84–101. Retrieved
from http://www.colorado.edu/journals/cye/
Lynch, K. 1990. City sense and city design: Writings and practice of Kevin Lynch.
Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Maller, C. Townsend, P. Pryor, P. Brown, and L. St. Leger. 2006. Healthy Nature Healthy
People: Contact with Nature as an Upstream Health Promotion Intervention for Populations:
Health Promotion International 21, 45–54.
121
Malone, K. and P. Tranter. 2003. Children’s environmental learning and the use, design,
and management of schoolgrounds. Children, Youth, and Environments, 13(2). Retrieved from
http://colorado.edu/journals/cye
Miller, W. May 2009. An examination of the role for landscape architects in the No Child
Left Inside Movement. The University of Texas Libraries ProQuest. Retrieved from University of
Texas Libraries. http://libproxy.uta.edu:2072/pqdweb?index=0&did=1777751861&SrchMode=
1&sid=2&Fmt=2&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1253810411&clientI
d=89(Miller, 2009)
Moore, R. 1986. Childhood’s domain: Play and place in child development. Dover NH:
Croom Helm.
Moore, R. 2006. Playgrounds: A 150 year old model. In H. Frumkin, R.J. Geller, and I.L.
Rubin (Ed.), Safe and healthy school environments. Oxford NY: Oxford University Press.
Moore, R. and C. Marcus. 2008. Healthy planet, healthy children: Designing nature into
the daily spaces of childhood. In R. Stephen, S. Kellert, J. Heerwagen, and M. Mador (Eds.),
Biophilic design: The theory, science, and practice of bringing buildings to life (385). Hoboken NJ:
Wiley.
Moore, R. and H. Wong. 1997. Natural learning: The life of an environmental schoolyard.
Berkeley CA: MIG Communications.
Muñoz. 2009. Children in the outdoors. Sustainable Development Research Centre: A
Literature Review, 4–24.
Nabhan, P. and S. Trimble. 1994. The geography of childhood: Why children need wild
places. Boston MA: Beacon Press.
Natural Learning Initiative. 2009. Natural learning initiative. Retrieved from http:
//www.naturalearning.org
National Wildlife Federation. 2009. Retrieved from https://online.nwf.org/site/
Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=788
122
National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER). 2004. A Research Review of
Outdoor Learning. Retrieved from www.nfer.ac.uk
Nix, P. 2010. Beyond a garden in every school. Retrieved from the Center for Ecoliteracy
website: http://www.ecoliteracy.org/essays/beyond-garden-every-school
No Child Left Inside (NCLI) Coalition. 2009. No Child Left Inside. Retrieved from
http://www.cbf.org/ Page.aspx?pid=702
North American Association for Environmental Education (NAAEE). 2008. Title of
content? Retrieved from www.naaee.org
North Central Texas Council of Governments. 2010. Title of content? Retrieved from
http://www.nctcog. dst.tx.us/
O’Brien, L. and R. Murray. 2005. Forest School in England Environmental Education,
Spring, 8 – 9.
Orr, D. 1992. Ecological literacy education and the transition to a postmodern world.
Albany NY: State University of New York Press.
Orr, D. 1992. Ecological Literacy. Albany NY: State Universities of New York.
Orr, D. 1994. Earth in mind: On education, environment, and the human prospect.
Washington, DC: Island Press.
Orr, D. 2002. Political Economy and the Ecology of Childhood. In Children and Nature:
Psychological, Sociocultural, and Evolutionary Investigations, P.H. Kahn, Jr. and S.R. Kellert,
(Eds.). Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Orr, D. 2009. Ecotherapy: Healing with nature in mind. San Francisco CA: Sierra Club
Books.
Ozdemir, A. 2008. Assessment of outdoor schools environments and physical activity in
Ankara's primary schools. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28(3), 287–300.
Penn, H. 2005. Spaces without children. In Children’Great Britain: Architectural Pr
Elsevier Science Pub.
123
Phenice, L. and R. Griffore. 2003. Young Children and the Natural World. Contemporary
Issues in Early Childhood. 4(2), 167–178
Phillips, N., and S. Straussner. 2006. Children in the urban environment. Springfield IL:
Charles C. Thomas, Ltd.
Pyle, R. 1978. The Extinction of Experience. Horticulture, 64–67.
Pyle, R. 2002. Eden in a Vacant Lot: Special Places, Species, and Kids in the
Neighborhood of Life. In Children and Nature: Psychological, Sociocultural, and Evolutionary
Investigations, Kahn, P. and S. Kellert (Eds.), xix, 348. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Richardson, B. 1998. Gardening with children. Newtown CT: Tauton Press.
Rivkin, M. 1997. The Schoolyard Habitat Movement: What It Is and Why Children Need
It. Early Childhood Education Journal 25(1), 61–66.
Rocheleau, C. 1998. Frederick Law Olmstead: Designing the American Landscape. New
York NY: Universe.
Rogers, E. 1995. Diffusions of Innovations. New York NY: The Free Press.
Schiff, P. 1996. Twenty-twenty: Projects and activities for wild school sites: an Ohio
project wild action guide. Columbus OH: Division of wildlife, education section.
Simmons Vedder Partners. 2009. Retrieved from http://www.simmonsvedder.com/
projects/projectthecrossingsatlakeline.asp#Photo3
Sipe, E. 2006. Creating Child Friendly Cities. New York NY: Routledge.
Sobel, D. 1996. Beyond ecophobia: Reclaiming the heart in nature education. Great
Barrington MA: The Orion Society and the Myrin Institute.
Sobel, D. 2008. Childhood and nature: Design principles for educators. Portland ME:
Stenhouse Publishers.
Sobel, D. 1993. Children’s Special Places: Exploring the role of forts, dens, and brush
houses in the middle childhood. Tucson AZ: Zephyr Press.
124
Stine, S. 1997. Landscapes for Learning: Creating Outdoor Environments for Children
and Youth. New York: J. Wiley and Sons.
Stein, T. 1997. Understanding How Rural Community Stakeholders Value and Benefit
from Natural Landscapes. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Minnesota. Retrieved from University
of Texas Libraries, http://proquest.com6/, publications number AAT 9815074
Stone, M. and Center for Ecoliteracy. 2009. Smart by nature. Healdsburg CA: Watershed
Media.
Sustainable Development Commission. 2008. Health, Place and Nature: how outdoor
environments influence health and well-being: a knowledge base: Retrieved from http://www.sd-
commission.org.
Tabbush, P. and L. O’Brien. 2003. Health and Well-being: trees, woodlands and natural
spaces. Forestry Commission.
Tai, L., M. Haque, G. McLellan, and E. Knight. 2006. Designing Outdoor Environments
for Children: Landscaping Schoolyards, Gardens, and Playgrounds. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Takahashi, N. 1999. Educational landscapes: Developing school grounds as learning
places. Charlottesville VA. University of Virginia, Thomas Jefferson Center for Educational
Design.
Taylor, A., F. Kuo, and W. Sullivan. 2001. Coping with ADD: The surprising connection to
green play settings. Environment and Behavior, 33(1), 54–77.
Taylor, A. and F. Kuo. 2009. Children with attention deficits concentrate better after walk
in the park, Journal of Attention Disorders, 12(5), 402–409.
Taylor, S. and R. Bogdan. 1998. Introduction to qualitative research methods: A guide
book and resource. New York NY: Wiley.
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD). 2009. Texas Wildscapes 2010. Retrieved
from http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/
125
Thomashow, C. 2002. Adolescents and Ecological Identity: Attending to Wild Nature. In
Children and Nature: Psychological, Sociocultural, and Evolutionary Investigations, P. Kahn and
S. Kellert (Eds.), Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Titman, W. 1994. Special places, special people: The hidden curriculum of school
grounds. Ontario, Canada: Green Brick Road.
http://www.co.travis.tx.us/tnr/bccp/default.asp
Trust for America’s Health. 2009. F as in Fat 2009: How obesity policies are failing in
America. Retrieved from http://healthyamericans.org/reports/obesity2009/
Tunnicliffe, S. 2008. Children’s understanding of the natural world: ponds. Environmental
Education, Summer, 16–18 and 27–28.
Trust for America’s Health. 2009. New report finds Texas has 14th highest percent of
obese adults and 20th highest percent of obese overweight children in the U.S. Retrieved from
http://healthyamericans.org/reports/obesity2009/release.php?stateid=TX
Twine. August 7, 2006. Community Impact. Retrieved from http://impactnews.com/
leander-cedar-park/local-news/619-lakeline-station-live-work-play
U.S. Census Bureau. 2009. Retrieved from U.S. Census Bureau: http://factfinder.
census.gov/servlet/SAFFPopulation?_event=ChangeGeoContext&geo_id=16000US4805000&_g
eoContext=01000US%7C04000US48%7C05000US48491&_street=&_county=austin&_cityTown
=austin&_state=04000US48&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&ActiveGeoDiv=geoSelect&_useEV
UNICEF. 2009. Convention on the Rights of the Child. Retrieved from
http://www.unicef.org/crc/
Vision North Texas and North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG). 2007.
Vision North Texas: Issues. Retrieved from http://www.visionnorthtexas.org/issues.html
Vision North Texas. 2008. Retrieved from http://www.visionnorthtexas.org/
regionalchoices/VNT_Regional_Choices.pdf
126
Weir, L., D. Etelson, and D. Brand. 2006. Parent’s perceptions of neighborhood safety
and children’s physical activity, Preventive Medicine, 43(3), 212 – 217.
Wells, N. 2000. At Home with Nature: Effects of ―Greenness‖ on Children’s Cognitive
Functioning. Environment and Behavior, 32(6), 775–795.
Wells, N. and W. Gary. 2003. Nearby Nature: A Buffer of Life Stress Among Rural
Children. Environment and Behavior, 35, 311–330.
Wells, N. and K. Lekies. 2006. Nature and Life Course: Pathways from Childhood Nature
Experiences to Adult Environmentalism. Child, Youth and Environments, 16(1), 1–24.
White, R. 2004. Young Children’s Relationship with Nature: Its Importance to Children’s
Development and the Earth’s Future: White Hutchinson Leisure and Learning Group. Retrieved
from: http://www.whitehutchinson.com/
White, R. and V. Stoecklin. 1998. Children’s outdoor play and learning environments:
Returning to nature. Retrieved from http://www.childrennatureandyou.org/Children’s%20Outdoor
%20Play%20White%20Stoecklin.pdf
Williams, M. 2003. Through the negative: The photographic image and the written word in
nineteenth-century American literature. New York NY. Routledge.
Wilson, E. 1984. Biophilia. Cambridge MA, London, England: Harvard University Press.
Wilson, R. 2008. Nature and young children: Encouraging creative play and learning in
natural environments. New York, NY: Routledge.
Wilson, R. 1997. The Wonders of Nature - Honoring Children’s Ways of Knowing. Early
Childhood News, 6(19).
127
BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
Shawn Marie Bookout was raised in Carlsbad, California and moved to Texas in 1993 to
raise her family. Her occupations and hobbies have been greatly influenced by a passion for the
outdoor environment, which lead her to the pursuit of a degree in landscape architecture. In 2005
she graduated from The University of Texas at Arlington with a Bachelor of Arts in
Interdisciplinary Studies.
In 2006 she enrolled in the Program in Landscape Architecture at the University of Texas
at Arlington in pursuit of a master’s degree. Shawn currently resides in Keller, Texas with her
husband Kyle and son Cody, where she enjoys sharing her life with her five children and five
grandchildren. She is looking forward to graduating and embracing a future career as a
Landscape Architect.